Invisible Work : Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families [1 ed.] 9789027297655, 9789027218476

Citation preview

Invisible Work

Impact: Studies in language and society impact publishes monographs, collective volumes, and text books on topics in sociolinguistics and language pedagogy. The scope of the series is broad, with special emphasis on areas such as language planning and language policies; language conflict and language death; language standards and language change; dialectology; diglossia; discourse studies; language and social identity (gender, ethnicity, class, ideology); and history and methods of sociolinguistics

General editor Annick De Houwer University of Antwerp

Advisory board Ulrich Ammon

William Labov

Gerhard Mercator University

University of Pennsylvania

Laurie Bauer

Elizabeth Lanza

Victoria University of Wellington

University of Oslo

Paul Drew

Joseph Lo Bianco

University of York

The Australian National University

Anna Escobar

Peter Nelde

University of Illinois at Urbana

Catholic University Brussels

Guus Extra

Dennis Preston

Tilburg University

Michigan State University

Margarita Hidalgo

Jeanine Treffers-Daller

San Diego State University

University of the West of England

Richard A. Hudson

Vic Webb

University College London

University of Pretoria

Volume 12 Invisible Work: Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families by Toshie Okita

Invisible Work Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families

Toshie Okita

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam
/
Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Okita, Toshie Invisible Work : Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families / Toshie Okita. p. cm. (Impact: Studies in language and society, issn 1385–7908 ; v. 12) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Bilingualism--Great Britain. 2. Japanese--Great Britain--Languages. 3. Child rearing--Great Britain. I. Title. II. Series. P115.5.G7 O38 2001 420.42956’0941--dc21 isbn 90 272 18471 (Eur.) / 1 58811 1067 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2001043201

© 2002 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

List of figures and tables

vii

Acknowledgements

ix

.

Introduction



. Developing a conceptual framework . The family in context . Ethnicity, culture and ethnic minority families . Language, bilingualism and childrearing . Concluding comments

    

. Research methods . Methodological Issues . Research Methods . Data Analysis . Validity and Generalisability

    

. Japanese-British families in the UK: a survey . Japanese residents in the UK . The questionnaire . The respondents . Language use and decision making . Relations with ‘Japan’ . Open questions . Conclusions, and implications for the interviews

       

. Initial language decision . Mothers . Fathers . Dynamics of decision making: the micro context . Socio-historical context of decision making: the macro context

    



Table of contents

. Getting on: adaptations in language use . Establishing a language use pattern (age approx. 0–2 years) . Thinking about school (age approx. 3–4) . Beginning school (age approx. 4–6) . Changing needs (age approx. 9–11) . Swing-over (English to Japanese) . It’s decided: now let’s get on with the main business (English -English)

     

.

    

Childrearing . Division of Labour . The road to ‘pro-activist’ mothering . Some consequences . Support



. Going to school . Starting school . Competing Demands — ‘not enough time’ . Adding Japanese reading and writing . Dealing with time conflicts and pressures

    

. Family relationships, identity and ethnicity . Teen years — growing independence of children, growing time for mothers . Evolving Family relationships . Aspirations and Identity . Ethnicity

    

. Concluding discussion . Illumination . Recognition

  

Bibliography



Appendices



Index



List of figures and tables

Figures . . . . . .

Mothers’ age and present language to children First child’s age and mothers’ present language Mothers’ age and initial language decision Period of initial language decision Change in mothers’ language use Changing family relations

     

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First child’s age in participant families Parents’ age in participant families Children’s interviews Japanese nationals in the UK Sampling procedure — ‘Family and Language Use Questionnaire’ Questionnaire distribution and returns Respondents for final analysis Age of respondents Languages used in the family Who was influential in the decision of your language use? Properties of ‘old hearth ties’ which influenced language decisions Factors particularly relevant for non-decision makers Starting language Sources for support for mothers and their effects Support during early childrearing Japanese reading and writing in families with school-age children Mothers’ employment (families with children over 13 yrs old)

                

Acknowledgements

I would like first to thank all the mothers, fathers and children who participated in this study, for their generosity in spending so much time talking and thinking about their experiences, as well as for trusting me in sharing them. I hope I have done justice to their help and trust by respecting their individual experiences and diversity in my writing. I would like to thank the members of the Nami no kai also for making the survey possible. I am most thankful to Martin Richards for his constructive advice and help throughout the project. His perspectives were vital for broadening, balancing and focusing the project. I would also like to thank Madeleine Arnot for her valuable support and comments, particularly during the formative and closing stages, as well as Terri Apter and Annick De Houwer for their helpful feedback, and suggestions. Members of the Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, provided a supportive atmosphere and interest in my research, especially Jill, Sally, Ann and Clare. The interdisciplinary nature of the research required hopping around various libraries within the University, and I am grateful for the warm welcome and smiles of the staff of the Education, Social and Political Sciences, Criminology and Anthropology libraries. Financial support from Clare Hall and the School of Education, University of Cambridge, is gratefully acknowledged. Kees Vaes of John Benjamins was very patient and professional. Finally, I thank HW for his unreserved support and unshakable optimism and faith in my project.

 

Introduction

Why is it that in some ethnically intermarried families children become bilingual, and in others they don’t? More pointedly, why is it that some ethnic minority mothers intending to raise their children bilingually find it impossible to consistently speak their own language, despite being told that a one parent — one language approach works best? Such questions, and the dilemmas over language use of Japanese-British intermarried families living in the UK, provided the initial motivation for this study. There are by now quite a few books offering advice to parents who wish to raise their children bilingually (e.g. Arnberg, 1987; Harding and Riley, 1986; Baker, 1995), but many parents just don’t seem to be able to follow that advice. Why not? At least part of the answer, it seemed to me as I started the study, had to do with the complexities of the childrearing dynamics in such families, with situations which made it impossible to follow the advice, or other parental objectives which conflicted with that of raising children bilingually. How could those situations or objectives be portrayed so that parents were better able to understand the dilemmas they were facing, if not resolve them? While the initial motivation came from language-related questions, and a desire to understand the bilingual-child rearing context in intermarried families more systematically, this is not a study about bilingualism per se. Rather, in order to address the questions, it became necessary to look at childrearing in intermarried families. Language issues, then, became a focus or a prism to uncover the dynamics at work. The key question which guided the study was: How do a mother’s and father’s values and aspirations concerning childrearing come together in ethnically intermarried families, what structural and situational characteristics influence this process, and how are language decisions and practice located in this process? From this question, the following questions arise: –

What are the major influences on childrearing in these families?



Invisible work

– How do two potentially diverse parental values interact, and how are they negotiated in the construction of childrearing? – What structural and situational factors influence the language decisions parents make? How, in turn, do the decisions influence family arrangements? – How do these dynamics change over time, in response to new situations and challenges, as children grow older? These questions place the study at the intersection of family, ethnicity and bilingualism research. This intersection is an area of growing research interest, with calls from each field for increased interdisciplinary co-operation and understanding. In order to answer the questions, I have had to draw on insights and methods from each of the fields, in a distinctive way. From family studies I derive the main research method — the life history method — on which the indepth interviews are based. This allows me to explore subjective views and several levels of context simultaneously. I also derive from family studies several important concepts relating to gendered childrearing and the ‘invisibility’ of certain kinds of work, which might be extended to include nurturing language competence. The importance of such work, and its invisibility, is reflected in the title of this book. From studies of ethnicity I draw on the concept of ‘situational ethnicity’ as a means of overcoming some deep-rooted prejudices relating to Japanese women and childrearing, and to help understand why the mothers in this study thought and behaved like they did in certain contexts. For key concepts and methods, I draw less directly from studies of bilingualism, but studies in this field do show the significance of the language issue for intermarried families, and some are particularly important because the advice they offer becomes part of the process of bilingual-child rearing in many intermarried families. The study looks at Japanese mother — British father families resident in the UK. Prevalent images of Japanese people in the UK are of families of businessmen sent by their companies to work or study for periods of up to five years. Much less is known about long-term residents, many of whom are women in intermarried families.1 A secondary aim of this book is to provide some basic information on this neglected minority group, their families, and patterns of language use.2 This is done through an exploratory survey, which is described in Chapters 3 and 4. The survey was also used to refine the interview issues and approach, and to identify a group of participants for the subsequent interviews. Thus the study uses a combination of methods. My objective in this study is not the generation or amplification of formal theory, based on consideration of a limited number of variables, or supported

 

Introduction

by a representative sample. Rather, it is for conditional substantive theory, and theoretical generalisation, which suggests how and why things happen in specific settings, thus generating ‘lessons for other settings’ (Mason, 1996). The organisation of the book follows the logic of addressing the research questions posed above. Chapter 2 draws selected insights from the three main fields which intersect in this study — family studies, ethnicity and childrearing in ethnically diverse families, and bilingualism and bilingual-child rearing. The review is necessarily selective, given the enormous amount that has been written in each of the fields. In Chapter 3 I consider methodology and methods, and argue for the utility of a multiple method approach which uses a survey, but stress the need for a sensitive qualitative approach for the main part of the study. For this, I propose the life history method, which allows not only subjective understandings and views to be explored, but enables the wider contexts to be incorporated simultaneously. In-depth, semi-structured interviews of twenty eight families based on this method make up the main part of the study. Many of the families had young children, in which parents were just embarking on childrearing, but other families had older children. This combination helped to show the significance of changes both in the immediate context, such as beginning school, and the socio-historical context in which the parents were raising their children, and were themselves raised. The questionnaire survey and its findings are discussed in Chapter 4. The main group of respondents were members of an association of Japanese women married to British husbands. The majority had young children, perhaps reflecting the type of support they sought from the association, but there were some with older children as well. The questionnaire served not only to give a broad picture of the family situation and language arrangements in the families, but to refine the issues and approach for the subsequent interviews, and to identify participants for that next phase. The results of the in-depth interviews are presented in the next five chapters. Chapters 5 and 6 look specifically at language use — at the initial decisions (and non decisions) which were made around the birth of the first child, and subsequent developments respectively. The ‘snapshot’ view of the initial language decision in Chapter 5 allows us to look at how the mothers and fathers thought about language use in this period and what kind of things influenced their thinking. It helps us to understand the process of decision making, and how this was influenced by parental aspirations and various contexts. Chapter 5, then, sets the scene for the following chapters. Chapter 6 examines how and why language use changed over time — during the initial childrearing





Invisible work

years, approaching school, starting school, and later — in response to changing needs, not just of children, but mothers and fathers as well. In some cases, there was a movement from use of English to Japanese in the early years, but more often, particularly during the school years, there was a movement towards greater use of English. These movements are shown to be closely related to the families’ childrearing and educational experiences. The following three chapters explore these experiences in greater detail. Chapter 7 looks at childrearing, especially in the pre-school years. Childrearing is not simply a context or influence; language is integral to childrearing, both as the medium through which it is carried out, and as a key competence which must be nurtured. This becomes particularly visible in bilingual intermarried families. Minority mothers in their husband’s country are particularly influenced by pressures towards what I shall call ‘pro-activist’ mothering, probably more so now than in past decades, and especially if they wish to teach their child their first language (Japanese in this case). This has important consequences for the mothers, their childrearing practices, and language use as well. Chapter 8 looks at new circumstances as a result of children starting school. Pressures on mothers can increase significantly, as they feel responsible for their children making a good start at school, which may conflict with their desire to teach their child the minority language. Early schooling and the recent emphasis on early literacy in the UK intensifies this dilemma. In addition, demands on time increase, and the introduction of Japanese reading and writing intensifies the pressures for pro-activism, or modification of the language strategy. The gap in perceptions between fathers and mothers is highlighted, and divergent paths of families are illustrated through case studies. Chapter 9 explores changing family relationships, identity and ethnicity issues as the children progress through school and beyond. The growing independence of children — in terms of determining how they spend their time, and how much time parents need to spend with them — brings new tensions and changing relationships. For mothers it brings a new search to find a ‘place’, which may be paid employment, or in some cases a desire to return to Japan. Examples graphically show the importance of ‘situated ethnicity’ and cast strong doubt on persistent stereotypes of Japanese women. The transition for fathers is less dramatic, as they have already established their ‘place’, and diverging aspirations of their partner can come as a shock. Ironically, this is particularly so where the father has attempted to co-operate fully in the bilingual project, which can marginalise his presence in the family. The final chapter is a concluding discussion. A key finding of this study is

 

Introduction

that raising children bilingually is emotionally demanding work. This may sound trite, but the significance is demonstrated, sometimes dramatically, in Chapters 5–9. The emotionally demanding nature of the work has largely been ignored, because much of it is ‘invisible’. One aspect which is invisible and makes the work so emotionally demanding is the need for simultaneous accommodation of demands and goals, some of which may be diametrically opposed, which the mothers have to deal with largely by themselves. The importance of ‘recognition’ of this invisible work is stressed. Recognition in itself would provide real benefits to the mothers, and it would offer a base for developing more effective kinds of support, particularly from partners. Recognition from researchers begins with the type of questions asked and the methods selected to answer those questions. Here looking beyond conventional disciplinary boundaries for new tools and concepts is important. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the study’s contribution to family studies, ethnicity studies and studies of bilingualism.

Notes . The term ‘Japanese resident’ is used to refer Japanese people living in the UK long-term, or with long-term prospects. Residents are generally distinct from those staying short-term (mainly sent by companies from Japan). The Japanese Consulate refers to the latter as ‘visitors’, and this study will use the same terms here. . There has been growing interest on the part of sociolinguists in such families, as the Japanese language is quite different from English, and Japan is geographically distant from the UK, which has implications for strategies to raise children bilingually.



 

Developing a conceptual framework

Introduction This study involves three fields of research — family studies, ethnicity studies and bilingualism studies. In each of the fields there has been a consistent demand for cross-disciplinary effort. In family studies there has been an explicit recognition of the need for more research into ethnicity in the family. In bilingualism studies there are growing calls for better incorporation of the family context. And in ethnicity studies there is a growing awareness of the need to incorporate conceptual tools from family studies, relating to the critical examination of gender, for instance. This study responds to demands for cross-disciplinary effort by drawing on methods and concepts from the three fields in a distinctive way, which will be outlined in Chapters 2 and 3. There is, of course, an enormous literature in each of the three fields, and I do not attempt an exhaustive review, but rather to extract contributions from each field which are most relevant for this study. I shall begin by looking at family studies, drawing attention to the life course approach, and then considering issues in gender and childrearing, including the concept of ‘invisible work’. Finally in the first section, I shall look at intermarriage studies, suggesting that the main focus of these has been on marriage, and that insights outlined earlier in the section, relating to parenthood, gender and childrearing, also need to be incorporated. In the second section I shall highlight a number of important concepts to emerge from studies of ethnic minority families, and particularly the concept of situational ethnicity. This concept is all the more important given persistent stereotypes of Japanese women and Japanese childrearing practices, which are also discussed. In the third section, I first argue for the importance of understanding language issues in intermarried families. It is a particularly pertinent focus or prism through which to study childrearing in such families. I also argue that research in this area can have a direct impact on intermarried fami-



Invisible work

lies, sometimes adverse in that it may add to pressures on minority mothers, pressures which remain largely invisible. Combining insights from the three fields, however, will help to develop a conceptual framework which can not only address the research questions, but by doing so, will provide a better understanding of language in intermarried families, which can alleviate some of these pressures and inform the advice offered by practitioners.

.

The family in context

The family is a complicated concept which sociologists have been striving to build a better understanding of (Morgan, 1985; Bernardes, 1988). The relationships which ‘family’, ‘marriage’, and ‘kinship’ denote are, researchers agree, influenced by and in turn influence the wider society (cf. Morgan, 1985). As parents do not exist in a vacuum, to understand them is to investigate the families/marriages, and the societies, in which they are rooted. It also means looking at issues relating to gender and childrearing. In this section I shall highlight some concepts from family studies which are important for my study. I begin by looking at the life course approach to the study of the family, then I consider parenthood and childrearing, from which the concept of ‘invisible work’ emerges. Finally, I will review studies of intermarriage, both to draw on relevant research, and to suggest contributions which my study might make. . Life course approach A number of approaches have been adopted for studying the family, with newer approaches building on, and reacting against, earlier approaches. Thus conflict theories (which regarded marriage as essentially and inherently conflictual) grew out of, and opposed, the functionalist approach (in which husbands and wives follow socially scripted and biologically determined roles) (Chester, 1985). The interactionist approach in turn built on insights from conflict theory with regards the nature of marital relationships, and individuals having different past experiences and experiencing the present differently, but gave greater recognition to the emotional aspects of marriage, and the importance of understanding people’s own perceptions and definitions of situations (cf. Berger and Kelner, 1964). ‘Marriage as process’ is an important feature of the approach. Criticisms levelled at interactionist research in general include the charge that it

 

Developing a conceptual framework

gives insufficient attention to objective social and economic conditions and over-emphasises the autonomy of individuals (Morgan, 1985; Chester, 1985), while Backett (1982) argues that it fails to answer how unique individuals come to create relatively similar sets of interpretations or meanings. An attempt to resolve some of these shortcomings is the life course approach, which sees individuals as active agents, but attempts to place them in the social and cultural contexts of various time periods under investigation. According to Clark: In recognising the inter-connections between personal and social time, between individuals and generations, such an approach sets an exciting framework for further development. (Clark, 1991:6 )

The crucial feature of the life course analysis is the ‘bond between age and time’ (Elder, 1978:23), or synchronisation of ‘family time’, ‘individual time’ and ‘historical time’ (Hareven, 1978:58). Two elements should be noted. First, data is examined carefully to capture uniqueness and change in the context of the wider society and its time (Morgan 1985). This element is rooted in the discipline of history, and the development of ‘family history’, which stimulated family sociologists to develop this approach. Second, it must be differentiated from the ‘life-cycle’ approach. In the life course approach the emphasis is more on the individual than on the family, and any idea of fixed or predictable stages is rejected. Differences and variations are appreciated rather than being treated as marginal. The concern is to link historical time with individual biography. The impact of historical processes on the timing of individual transitions is considered important, and also the cumulative impact of earlier transitions on subsequent ones. The approach was influenced by the work of anthropologists who studied people under profound change. A set of historical circumstances both provides constraints and offers opportunities for individuals to construct their own relationships. Individuals are active beings who develop different strategies to deal with the situations they face. A variety of responses are possible in relation to the same ‘external’ force (Laslett, 1980). Generalisations are not rejected, but are ‘more appreciative of process and variation’ (Morgan, 1985: 176) than the conventional generalisations of sociologists. Significantly for this study, Dilworth-Anderson (1993a) argues strongly that because of its interdisciplinary nature, its dynamic approach and a framework which offers conceptual flexibility, the life course approach has considerable potential for the study of families in ethnically diverse contexts.





Invisible work

. Gender and childrearing This study focuses on the childrearing period of the family, in which even more complicated factors come into play than in the period before children. Clearly, when studying the family, marriage should not be taken for granted. In addition, however, special attention to the nature of parenthood and childrearing is needed. Gender differences become more significant, relations become more complex, and decisions are informed by the broader realms of individuals’ lives more extensively than before. Here I shall discuss first the issue of gender, particularly research of recent years which attempts to reconceptualise work in the family. ‘Invisible work’ is especially relevant. Then I shall consider the micro and macro contexts of the childrearing period. Although the concept of ‘companionship’ in marriage was recognised in the UK from the 1920s, it became widely used only after World War II, in the context of post-war social reconstruction, which emphasised consolidating family life (Finch and Summerfield, 1991). ‘Companionate marriage’, however, was used by some to mean greater companionship between partners whose roles were essentially different, by others to mean teamwork in marriage, and yet others to mean marriage based on ‘sharing’, which breaks down socially prescribed roles of husbands and wives. Although the post-war movement towards more companionate marriage was seen by some as a movement towards equality in marriage (Young and Willmott, 1973), various studies showed that the division of household work had not changed substantially, and inequality between husbands and wives was still more or less the norm,1 especially after the transition to parenthood.2 Chester (1985) summarised the common pattern of the findings as wives or couples speaking of equality, intimacy and closeness, but limited participation by husbands in house work. Despite the increasing involvement of married women in paid employment, which created expectations of change, companionship did not lead to equality, and such women were left with a ‘double burden.’3 Why has this domestic division of labour — which, as we shall see, was pronounced in the families studied here — persisted, in spite of decades of change in people’s ideas of marriage? Attempts to answer this question led researchers to look more closely at, amongst other issues: 1) power in marital relationships, 2) the broad context that domestic labour is embedded in, and 3) the nature of family work. These attempts were, in a way, attempts to make formerly invisible factors visible. The prevailing view of the power approach suggests that it takes power to

 

Developing a conceptual framework

get out of household work (best explained in terms of the relative resource principle based on social exchange and resource availability: Thompson and Walker, 1989). However, a number of researchers have questioned whether there is a straightforward relationship between power and the amount of work shared or control over decision-making (Kamo, 1988; Ferree, 1987). The complex nature of the relationship has led such researchers to focus on the invisible structure of the power in society (Komter, 1989) and processes in which these macro structures are realised in individual relationships through interaction (Thompson and Walker, 1989; Lavin, 1987; also Komter, 1989; Finch, 1989). Regarding the second approach, Edgell (1980) argued that inequality is linked to the way in which domestic role relationships are articulated with the sexual division of labour in society which assumes the primacy of wives’ domestic responsibilities. Morris’s (1990) explanation a decade later, however, was that economic change is mediated for the individual household by a web of constraining social, ideological and statutory influences which have worked against significant challenge to established gender roles and identities. Thus gender inequality has persisted, despite the many changes in household forms, domestic law, and economic relationships. In addition, social arrangements making women economically dependent on men and assigning the principal tasks of domestic labour to them (Yeandle, 1984) have been supported by an ideology of family life which produces a ‘myth of family unity’ (Glenn, 1987: 362). Here conflicts of interest are disguised and ‘the primacy of husband/father’s interest over those of other family members’ (op. cit.) is legitimated, making the division of labour at home difficult to challenge. As for the third approach, DeVault (1987: 178–80) tried to depict the nature of housework which was not readily visible before. She pointed out that most previous studies of housework utilised the theoretical framework and vocabulary of paid work, whereas much housework is ‘invisible’ (cf. Oakley, 1974), including emotional work, which is central in contemporary family life. Emotional work is work which establishes relations of solidarity, which maintains bonds of affection, which provides moral support, friendship and love, which gives people a sense of belonging, of ontological strength, of empowerment, and thereby makes them feel good. (Delphy and Leonard, 1992:21)4

Delphy and Leonard (1992) define family work in three categories: 1) economically or practically productive work, 2) cultural work (for display) ‘directed to produce social and cultural capital rather than just economic capital: which stresses that individuals are concerned not only with having money and property but also status, attention, fame, a reputation for generosity, etc.’ (p. 21),





Invisible work

and 3) emotional work. The last two categories in particular are relevant in this study. Both involve language, both in terms of the extensive use of speech, and teaching language to the child. In addition, both are emotionally demanding types of work. In her attempt to broaden the understanding of family work, too, DeVault (1987) illustrated how ‘feeding’ involves complicated invisible work, such as planning — varied and personally suited meals for the members of the household — managing — monitoring and controlling the children and ‘setting an example’ — and orchestrating — co-ordinating the schedule and organising the occasion, by for example talking about nice things and making sure that everyone has the opportunity to talk — so that the mealtime becomes a positive social event (cf. also Feiring and Lewis, 1987). Feeding is also about connecting household members with the larger society by offering the situation of socialising, and ‘day-to-day production of the kind of group life we know as “family’’’ (De Vault, 1987: p.179). It is invisible because it is largely mental, spread over time and ‘noticeable when it is not completed but disappears from view when it is done well’ (op. cit. p. 188). Another largely invisible responsibility is involving fathers, ensuring that they are not excluded, or conversely, allowed to behave unreasonably (Marshall, 1991). Mothers/wives tend to feel responsible for this kind of work, which influences their choices in family life, and becomes a source of emotional burden when it is not carried out satisfactorily. Other tasks such as overall and ultimate responsibility for childcare, which includes the delegation of child care and constant availability, remain peripheral to most husbands (Boulton, 1983; Backett, 1982; Morris, 1990), and like emotional work and feeding, are largely invisible, but central to the reproduction of the family (Thorogood, 1987). Also included in this category is work related to language transmission (cf. LeVine, 1988, discussed below). Looking at relatively early parenthood, as much of this study does, is likely to involve charting difficulties for husbands and wives caused by newly assigned work and unexpected situations which demand negotiation and collaboration. This is likely to be even more so in the case of husbands and wives from distinctly different social backgrounds. Studies on how parenthood influences marriage confirm that gender differentiation and specialisation accompanies parenting, and marks a considerable drop in marital satisfaction (Cohen, 1977; Cowan et al, 1985; Chester, 1985; Clulow; 1987, 1993; Thompson and Walker, 1989). One explanation for this is that women put primacy on mothering, which often means withdrawal from paid employment, while husbands devote themselves to providing (Cowan et al., 1985; LaRossa and LaRossa, 1981, Backett, 1987;

 

Developing a conceptual framework

Mansfield and Collard, 1988). Thus mothers end up doing most of the child care and domestic work, regardless of the previously established pattern or expected equality before they became parents. Put bluntly: If New Man ever existed he was very short-lived and disappeared when children come along. (Mintel, 1995, cited in Denscombe, 1996)

Additionally, although differences of opinion between husband and wife exist before parenthood, childrearing demands more resolutions to be made (for instance, how to discipline and care), creating a greater possibility of conflict (LaRossa and LaRossa, 1981). This could be particularly relevant in intermarriage, since images of parenting and mothering/fathering are socially influenced, increasing the chances of such differences in opinion and conflict. As Clulow (1993) argues, unmet needs, unresolved conflicts and unfinished business from past families is brought into marriage and childrearing. Enduring images of mothers as primary caretakers of children and homemakers and fathers as breadwinners (Boulton, 1983; Glenn, 1987) have been modified by emerging images of ‘new fatherhood’ or ‘new parenthood’ (Pleck, 1987), in which childcare tasks are fully shared. Such images play a role in constructing the reality of parenthood (LaRossa and LaRossa, 1981; Komter, 1989; Thompson and Walker, 1989, West and Zimmerman, 1987). Between these two socially and historically constructed contradictory images, however, exist the everyday experiences of most mothers and fathers. Parenthood needs to be seen as a process which is negotiated and constructed continuously through the interaction between the mother and the father. In this study, the process may be expected to include the negotiation of different images or goals of parenthood and childrearing formed by the different socio-historical upbringing of the parents. An important critique of studies of parenthood has been the lack of the men’s direct input in terms of their own ideas about fatherhood and parenthood (cf. McKee, 1982; Backett, 1982; Morgan, 1990). This also applies to studies of the ‘family’ in general, resulting in possible bias by heavily relying only on wives’ accounts (cf. Edgell, 1972; McKee and O’Brien, 1982; Finch and Mason, 1993). McKee (1982) argued that the continued reliance on maternal reports of parental behaviour was an empirical bias. However, since fathers were ‘discovered’ in the early 1970s, various aspects of fathers and fatherhood have been studied (Parke, 1985; Bradley, 1985; Lamb, 1991; Mirande, 1991). Bozett and Hanson argue that: Contrary to the situation in the early 1970s, there is now no paucity of knowledge about fathers, fatherhood and fathering. (1991:xiii)





Invisible work

Gaps remain, however, one of which is cultural dimensions, including ethnicity (opt. cit.). Tripp-Reimer and Wilson (1991) argue that culture is an important component of fatherhood, but note that it is part of a complex constellation that also includes economic status, educational background, religion and individual experiences. Fathers views are important for this study, and the direct incorporation of fathers’ views should help to show the diversity of fatherhood (McKee and O’Brien, 1982), and to develop a better appreciation of the processes of role construction (McKee, 1982): It will also help to show how couples build and sustain their family ideologies, how they set and achieve family goals and how they face and adapt to institutional and interpersonal change. (op. cit.: 129)5

In this subsection I have dealt in some length with issues of gender and childrearing. In addition to reaffirming the need to look at parents in their wider socio-historical settings, as suggested in the last subsection, this has highlighted the need to look at gendered processes within the family setting, particularly with regards childrearing. A lot of the work here is largely ‘invisible’, including language-related work, as well as emotional work. Sensitivity to these will be critical for answering the questions of this study. . Intermarriage studies There has been a relative lack of research interest, especially in the UK, in mixed-parentage families (Tizard and Phoenix, 1993) and intermarriage (Chester, 1985).6 What research there is may be broadly characterised under three strands. First, some intermarriage studies look at marital relationships almost exclusively in terms of interaction between different cultures (Cottrell, 1973, Imamura, 1988; Johnson and Warren, 1994; Barbara, 1989; Nitta, 1988; Rohrrich, 1988; Stevens and Swicegood, 1987). A second strand looks at intermarriage between immigrant and majority populations, or between ethnic groups, as a sensitive indicator of the permeability of ethnic boundaries (Blau et. al, 1982; Levine and Montero, 1973; Tinker, 1973; Kikumura and Kitano, 1973; Woodrum, 1987; Cretser, 1990; Sung, 1990; Lee and Yamanaka, 1990; Hwang et al., 1997; Qian, 1997). Here, longitudinal change (first, second, and third generations) is often examined using census data. A third and recent strand concentrates on the (ethnic) identity development of the children of intermarriage. This may be seen as an extension of adolescent ethnic identity studies.

 

Developing a conceptual framework

Relating to the first strand, Cottrell’s review (1990) of intermarriage studies identifies three types: 1. Colonial/War Bride Marriages, 2. Educated Western — non-Western Couples, 3. Educated Western — Western Couples (near cultures). Research on intermarriage began in the post-war period. As Cottrell noted: Prior research on people of different national cultures were all studies of immigrants. Cross-national marriage7 was not a social issue in the United States, and thus not a topic for research, until America was “hit” by the wave of war brides following World War II. (1990:151–152)

Key themes of colonial/war bride marriage research were alienation and isolation. Husbands tended to be from lower social classes, while wives were from somewhat higher socio-economic backgrounds. While some research showed successful rather than conflictual relationships (Schnepp and Yui, 1955; Strauss, 1954), most studies showed the couples as socially isolated, communicating poorly and not living up to each other’s idealised image. The research focus on war brides continued through the 1970s, and often involved Japanese war brides (11 out of 23 studies reviewed by Cottrell). For the second type — educated Western — non-Western couples — dominant themes have been culture conflict and marginality. These marriages involve highly educated individuals, where the husband is often non-Western. Both partners are from advantaged backgrounds, typically from middle to upper class families. They also tend to have some international experience. Adjustment is needed, however, when the couple meet in a Western country and move to the husband’s country, where a higher degree of segregation and different patterns of conjugal relationships are the norm. There the wife does not know ‘how to play her primary role in a traditional society, that of mother and wife’: She does not know the heritage which is her responsibility to transmit to her children, and she does not understand the institutional arrangements for cultural transmission. (Cottrell, 1990:157)

The third type — ‘educated Western — Western (near culture)’ couples — is illustrated by Varro’s (1988) study of American wives married to French husbands and living in France. The dominant theme here is the wife’s personal fulfilment through bicultural children and career achievement. Culture conflict is minimised in this case, and the agenda for the wives revolves around fulfilling these two types of personal needs. First, wives are strongly concerned about





Invisible work

transmitting their culture to the next generation, which leads to great concern over their childrens’ bilingualism. As one wife put it: ‘Every time an American woman married to a Frenchman meets someone in France — man or woman, American or French — for the first time, she is made to feel ashamed if her children are “not even” bilingual’ — as if the children’s bilingualism served to justify her presence in the (French) family, as if she herself felt it needed justification. (Varro, 1988:6)

Second, in terms of career, the wives are unable to utilise their credentials built up in their country of origin, and are either unable to work, or forced to accept less challenging jobs. War bride studies suggested no career orientation on the part of the brides in their adopted country. Socialised in 1940s and early 1950s, they were apparently willing to assume the ‘traditional’ woman’s role in the family (although work orientations were clearly not a focus of the research, so this view cannot be accepted uncritically). Varro, by contrast, claims that some of the young American wives’ search for identity could become desperate, as they were defined by what they did in the public domain in a mobile society. Linking these two personal needs — aspiration/obsession for childrens’ bilingualism and the unfilled desire for their self realisation through career — she argues: Possibly this is the cross-roads where one must look for the connection between feelings of personal dissatisfaction and the desire for a precociously bilingual child; if children are considered a woman’s main “occupation,” if she is to bear the responsibility for how they turn out, she should be able to claim the credit, not simply bear the blame. (Varro, 1988:55–56)

Of particular interest here is Varro’s portrayal of the next generation’s bilingualism as a primary issue for wives, and her attempt to explore the relationship between parents’ conjugal structures (although she only interviewed wives) and the level of bilingualism attained by the child, through exploring parents’ religion, employment status, running of the house, the wives’ aspirations for their children, and for themselves. Weak points in cross-national marriage research include the number of dated studies, and the small random samples employed, which limits their contribution to a more comprehensive picture of the field (Cottrell, 1990). Samples have been American/ English dominated, and most have focused on foreign wives (wives living in a country other than their country of origin). Foreign wives’ greater difficulties relative to foreign husbands, who take on more public male roles, are caused by the need to have greater knowledge of the host country to perform their primary role as a wife and mother within the pri-

 

Developing a conceptual framework

vate sphere of the family. The focus on wives compounds the tendency noted earlier of husbands’ accounts being neglected. Although this study, too, focuses on families in which the wife/mother is from an ethnic minority, it does incorporate the views of husbands/fathers. Another criticism is that ‘couple centredness’ has led to a conspicuous lack of information on children, and the dynamics of raising children. Children are often little more than a passing observation to shed light on parental values. In spite of the widely held view that children of intergroup marriages suffer, the children themselves are rarely included in the study of cross-national marriage. (Cottrell, 1990:160)

There is a certain amount of research on mixed-heritage children, in which the emphasis on ‘marginality’ has given way to non-clinical, qualitative studies which present a less negative, more dynamic picture of ‘situational ethnicity’,8 but this research tends to remain quite distinct from that of intermarriage. Thus, while there are some important insights from studies of intermarriage, such as Varro’s emphasis on American mothers’ search for identity, and linking of this with bilingual-child rearing, for this study we have to incorporate concepts and insights from ‘mainstream’ family studies, such as the gendered nature of the family and childrearing and invisible work. As I have suggested, the life course approach offers a promising way of doing this.

. Ethnicity, culture and ethnic minority families In her introduction to the Journal of Family Issues special issue on ‘Cultural Diversity in American Family Life’, N. Williams argues: (T)he data indicate that students of family life need to understand racial and ethnic theory and research if they are to come to terms with an increasingly diverse social order. So too, students of race and ethnicity need to give more attention to family arrangements. In addition, both students of family relations and of racial and ethnic relations need to work toward developing new models that are based on forms of racial and ethnic pluralism, rather than on the assimilationist orientation. (1995:244)

Having introduced some important concepts from family studies, as well as a number of problems in intermarriage studies, I follow Williams’ advice and turn to studies of ethnicity and ethnically diverse families for additional insights which will be crucial for this study. In this section I first look at some





Invisible work

important concepts to emerge from studies of ethnic minority families, and then draw attention to the concept of situational ethnicity. Using this concept will help to overcome some persistent problems with respect to cross-cultural studies of Japanese mothers and Japanese childrearing, which are introduced. Finally, I look at a framework developed by LeVine and others which attempts to develop a nuanced view of parental values in diverse contexts. LeVine explicitly discusses language-related work as an important characteristic of childrearing in an urban-industrial context. Identifying strengths and weaknesses of this approach will highlight features of the approach taken in this study. . Ethnic minority families Although this study concerns intermarried rather than minority families, studies of the latter contribute a number of important insights which have yet to be fully incorporated into studies of intermarriage. There is a growing literature on ethnic minority families in the UK, but a much bigger literature in the US, where many studies have looked at the different family, social and economic experiences of minority families. Various reasons have been given for the different experiences of different minorities, some of them relating to cultural values and norms. ‘Culture’ and ‘norms’ are very slippery concepts, however, and are often used too loosely. Observed phenomena, such as the high educational achievement of Japanese Americans, are attributed to certain cultural values, such as family cohesion and stability, but the values themselves have no measurably independent existence, and so the reasoning becomes circular (cf. Taylor, 1994: 5). Studies which use ‘cultural values’ in such a way have been denounced as a ‘new Darwinism’ by Steinberg (1981). Cultural value explanations, too, often ignore differences in opportunity structures available to ethnic and racial minorities, which have a strong impact on their family and social life: (C)oncentrating as it does on the elements of group culture as sources of success or failure in society, the cultural thesis effectively rules out consideration of structural conditions or situational differences that racially defined minorities have experienced in the United States. (Taylor, 1994:6)

These structural conditions and situational differences are complex and vary from group to group, but they have been explored in some depth in recent studies. Takagi (1994), for instance, strongly criticises the cultural perspective on Japanese American families, and adopts what she calls a ‘critical perspective’. She studies Japanese American families in two historical periods —

 

Developing a conceptual framework

1900–1945, and 1945 onwards — which cover three generations, and shows first how historical factors such as immigration laws, race relations and politics have shaped their experiences, and second how internal processes such as socialisation and the distribution of status, roles and authority must be seen in the context of the ‘shifting historical landscape of immigration laws, racism, and internment’ (p.147). There are several points to note from such studies. First, cultural values or norms cannot be seen in isolation from their context, or be assigned a non-verifiable explanatory power. We shall return to this later. Second, such studies rightly point to the importance of socio-historical contexts. In this study there are several such contexts to consider; the socio-historical context in which the parents themselves were raised, which in the case of mothers was shown to have an important influence on language decisions and approaches to childrearing (Okita, 1996),9 and the geographic, economic and social contexts in which the parents raise their own children. A third point, which is less obvious, is that such studies are able to link what goes on in the family with their context through processes and choices because they have a focus. An example of focus is the issue of whether or not women work outside the home. Many minority groups, including blacks, Chinese and Japanese in the US, have high labour force participation rates for women, and women contribute a higher proportion of family income than they do in white families (Glenn, 1985; Glenn and Yap, 1994). This is linked to their economic situation, discrimination faced by minority men, and the need for women to work to support the family. But it also has consequences for status and roles within the house. In the case of Chinese families, economic hardship was a factor encouraging extended families to live together, and in this situation, taking care of children was often delegated to grandparents. In this study the focus is not on the issue of women working, but on language decisions and use. This focus will enable me to look at processes of childrearing and relationships to various contexts, which is necessary to answer the research questions. . ‘Situational ethnicity’ One way in which researchers have tried to overcome the abuses of ‘culture’ and ‘ethnicity’ as explanatory variables is to move from macro, monolithic conceptions to the level of micro-sociology through concepts such as ‘situational ethnicity.’ At the micro, individual level:





Invisible work

‘Variable meanings of ethnicity, the differing criteria for ascription of ethnic identities, the fluidity of ethnic boundaries, and the varying relevance of ethnic and other social identities are most apparent for the actor and the researcher alike. (Okamura, 1981:452)

Such a perspective avoids: problems of reification of the concept of ethnic group that follows from its identification with an objectively defined, shared, uniform cultural inventory or with common normative patterns of behaviour that are assumed to be consistently adhered to . (ibid. emphasis added)

Situational ethnicity is central to Wilson’s (1984; 1987) study of mixed (black/white) race children and their mothers, in which she argues that the boundaries of an ethnic group are subjectively agreed rather than objectively defined. This introduces the potential for considering fluidity and dynamism of ethnic situations.10 She argues that at the societal level there appears to be a limited number of structured ethnic entities, each easily distinguishable by cultural or physical means, while at the micro level it becomes clear that these patterns are neither fixed nor clearly defined. She suggests that it was only when: sociologists descended ‘among the action’ that the complexity of ethnicity became evident. (Wilson, 1984:59)

Similar arguments have been advanced by feminist scholars looking at ethnic minority womens’ ethnicity and ethnic identity.11 Pheonix (1990) suggests that: ‘people are multiply positioned but rarely experience that multiplicity as fragmentary’ (p. 91).12

Based on her study of Asian women in East London, Woollett (1994) also claimed that ethnic identity is not an entity, but a complex of processes which are evolving continuously. The fluidity and multipositionality evident in such empirical studies are described as natural and non-problematic. Conceiving ethnicity as situational has another dimension as well. Wallman (1979: 4–5) argues that, depending on the situation, ethnicity may be an essential resource, an utter irrelevance or a crippling liability. Her approach leads her to be very cautious about observation: It is important to recognise how difficult it is to observe ethnicity in action. The observer may see a difference between two batches of people which is to him a significant difference. If he then assumes ethnicity to be relevant in all encounters between them, he may seriously misinterpret the meaning or the purpose of events observed. (p. xi, emphasis added; cf. also Wilson, 1984)

 

Developing a conceptual framework

A number of studies of minority and intermarried families seek to go beyond stereotyped views of ethnicity, but still posit ‘core values’ to be uncovered from the outset (cf. Dosanjh and Shuman, 1997). However, the importance of ‘descending among the action’, recognising the complexities and fluidity of ethnicity, and recognising the relativity of the concept of ethnicity itself will be crucial in this study. In brief, it is crucial to recognise: actor’s perceptions and understandings of cultural symbols and signs and the relevance he [sic.] attributes to these elements as a factor on his behavioural options in the situation in which he finds himself. (Okamura, 1981:463)

. Japanese ethnicity and culture When it comes to Japanese ethnicity and culture, macro-sociological accounts remain dominant, resulting in persistent and misleading stereotypes which influence even researchers sensitive to the importance of the micro-perspective and situated ethnicity (cf. Phinny, 1990). According to Takagi, culture-based perspectives of the Japanese American family have two main features; culture is seen as the main variable accounting for differences from other groups, and it is seen as constant rather than variable across different historical periods and generations (1994: 147–48). The same may be said to apply to perceptions of Japanese culture in general. For instance, Doi (1975) claimed (based on psychoanalysis of his patients) that amae, or the longing for dependence or indulgence, is a key and distinctive psycho-cultural characteristic of the Japanese, and a key to understanding their behaviour, while Nakamura (1964) cites thirteenth century Buddhist texts to illustrate the modern Japanese mind. Such tendencies have provoked a heated debate about Nihonjinron (theories of the Japanese). Critics point out that the theories are seldom developed through rigorous study, assume that Japanese society is homogeneous, and that this homogeneity is that of the middle class (mostly male) authors. Nihonjinron typically identify a particular characteristic of Japanese society, assign central importance to it, and find (or construct) an opposite in the ‘West’ (mostly the US). This is published to explain the peculiarity of the Japanese, is quoted by foreign scholars, who are in turn cited back in Japan. So widespread is this practice that a ‘sociology of Nihonjinron‘ has been developed (e.g. Yoshino, 1992, who argues for the importance of examining within-culture variability). Critically, Mouer and Sugimoto (1986) argue that Nihonjinron fail to take into account 1) regional and class variations, 2) the difference between voluntary and coerced behaviour, and 3) the extent of conflict in Japanese society.





Invisible work

Methodological issues are crucial here. As long ago as 1975 Voysey emphasised the dangers of using preframed approaches for investigating groups which are not well researched, yet this is precisely what has happened — and still happens — in the case of Japanese women, ethnicity and childrearing. A predetermined framework of what should be studied and what is to be valued is constructed without asking the subjects sensitively to explain what they do and think, and without taking account of the social context. It is this tendency that Goodman (1990; 1994) particularly attacks. He argues that studies of the ‘returnee schoolchildren (Japanese children of school age who have lived abroad) problem’ in the 1980s used rigid preconceptions of the ‘problems’ of such children, and frequently managed to confirm those preconceptions because of the methodology adopted, while the children themselves remained largely peripheral to the debates about them. . Cross-cultural studies on Japanese mothers and childrearing Studies of childrearing in different cultures were carried out originally by anthropologists, but interest spread to developmental psychologists. By and large these researchers were interested in culture, and human development and parental beliefs as influenced by different cultures. Socialisation was a critical focus, where the ‘impact of various interaction systems on the transmission of human culture’ could be observed (Shand, 1996: 276; cf. also Harkness and Super, 1996). For such studies, the mother-child dyad was critical. The family (of family studies) was virtually ignored, as mothers and children existed, not in a social-structural context (Allison, 1996), but as vessels in a sea of culture. The ‘vessels’ themselves were only asked superficially (not in a way they could really express their views) why they did things in particular ways — their sleeping arrangements, for instance — or how they felt about it. The result was that the Japanese mother is: believed to see her infant as an extension of herself and to organise her interactions so as to consolidate and strengthen a mutual dependence between herself and her infant. (Bornstein, et al. 1991:71)13

A picture of ‘Japanese mothers’ and ‘Japanese childrearing’ was skilfully created with almost no unframed input by the Japanese mothers themselves. Azuma (1996) reports, in his retrospective essay on cross-cultural childrearing, how his earlier influential US-Japan study on pre-school childrens’ development and childrearing (Azuma et al., 1981) initially intended to include a rural subgroup,

 

Developing a conceptual framework

but this was abandoned when it was found that grandmothers rather than mothers were the main caretakers of the children! Similarly, families with fathers of lower education were excluded, for reasons unknown. As a result, regional and class diversity were lost, and middle class Tokyo families in which housewife mothers were the main caretakers were taken as representative of Japan. The editors of the book in which this reflection appeared note Azuma’s development as a researcher (Shwalb and Shwalb, 1996: 6), but fail to note this substantive issue, and elsewhere proceed to argue for historical continuity and indeed homogeneity of Japanese mothers and mothering (Shwalb et.al., 1996).14 Leading Japanese female developmental psychologist Kashiwagi (a working mother), also participated in the US-Japan study, and reflected: When I was involved in the comparative US-Japan research, every time it was said ‘Japanese mothers are …’ I thought to myself ‘Is that really right? Can it all be simplified like this? Can they all be put in the same box?’ I remember feeling very uncomfortable as a Japanese mother myself… And when afterwards these same views were being explained to foreign researchers, I had the same feeling. (1995:46)15

If these biases arise in part from the dynamics of cross-cultural research groups — and the fact that the tendency to contrast intergroup differences leads to the downplaying of intragroup differences — it might also be argued that research which is translated and accepted by reputable journals undergoes a process of selection in which the kind of knowledge that is wanted is what is selected. Whether or not this is true, the images generated from studies such as this have been repeatedly and uncritically referred to by cross-cultural literature on family, child-rearing, and mother-child relationships. They are also used in the studies of intermarriage in referring to ‘Japanese mothers’(e.g.Imamura, 1990, Nitta, 1992). Kashiwagi, alluding to a lack of gendered understanding in cross-cultural childrearing studies, points to a research tradition in Japan which has given too little attention to subjective perspectives: It is a problem of whether the researcher is looking at ‘maternal nature’ (as supposed from the outside) or maternal nature (from the inside). The mainstream of developmental psychology in Japan has long taken the former as its base, and looked at mother-child relations, early experiences and family environment from that perspective. In addition, the ‘objective’ and the measurable has been emphasised, and sympathy towards the subjects’ own views has been lacking. The result is the view that ‘Japanese mothers are …’ and without finding out from mothers and women themselves, these ‘Japanese’ characteristics are generalised and reinforced. (1995:48).





Invisible work

She adds: Perhaps there is a strong tendency for women to be thoughtful of others and harmonise with others. That is the core of the role that has long been expected of them. But it is also women who have had to bear the burden of all of this. (p.50)

These points concur with the argument of LaRossa and LaRossa (1981), in their studies of couples’ transitions to parenthood: To know simply that a couple exhibits traditional behaviour tells us nothing about whether the husband and wife ‘have their hearts in it’ (role enhancement), or whether they are mechanically ‘going through the motions.’ In other words, the meaning which the couple imputes to their activity is lost. (p. 95)

The tendency is marked in studies of seemingly exotic cultures (Bachu, 1993; Phoenix, 1990; Glenn, 1994, Woollett, 1994). The frameworks used are simply not flexible enough to incorporate subjective views or to value diversity. Kashiwagi and Wakamatsu (1994) found that more fathers than mothers in their recent study felt that the child is an extension of themselves! They also found that the more the person is involved in day-to-day childcare, the weaker this tendency becomes. This might, of course, either show a change over time in mothers’ perceptions, or a change in these mothers’ socialization, which has changed their concept of childrearing and/or how they express it. Of such change, Kashiwagi argues: Changes in the behaviour and consciousness of women and mothers is striking. As I have already noted, there is a generational difference in anxiety towards childrearing, but women are getting married later, the number of middle-aged divorces instigated by women is increasing, women are refusing to move with their husband in work transfers, more couples are living apart — these all show changes on the part of women, wives, mothers. Many studies are now showing dramatic and accelerating changes in youth and women in particular towards gender division of labour norms. (p.48).

It is indeed puzzling that the studies of the 1950s and 1960s failed to highlight what was, in fact, a period of great social change in Japan: A great many young people who had grown up in entirely in the world of post war Japan felt a growing desire for new styles of social relationships in keeping with the democratic values supported within the school environment. (Pharr, 1976:322–23)

It is also puzzling that interdisciplinary studies of childrearing which incorporate social anthropology, developmental psychology and cognitive psychology,

 

Developing a conceptual framework

make almost no reference to a number of sociological studies of change in Japanese women published since the early 1990s (Imamura ed., 1996; Gelb and Palley eds., 1994; Iwao, 1993; Fujimura-Fanselow and Kameda, 1995). This study follows Kashiwagi’s call for an approach more sensitive to subjective views, and to diversity, complexity, change and the process of change. It is important to perceive individuals as agents who develop strategies to cope with life and their life agendas. For this, it is important not to prejudge what is relevant and what is not, and to fully take account of subjective meanings of experience, especially in studying those who have strong stereotypes directed towards them. . An alternative approach LeVine’s work is situated in the area of cross-cultural studies of childrearing, but with a distinct approach to incorporating diversity in parental behaviour. He attempts to integrate the cultural and phylogenetic approaches to investigating parental behaviour by encompassing universals along with variations, adaptive processes along with cultural imperatives, and actual parental practices along with ideal standards.16 In his interactive, dynamic model (1974), developed from extensive field work in Africa and comparative analysis with other work in industrialised countries, parents were endowed with a degree of autonomy to adapt or change. LeVine and White (1987) have further expanded the model to include historical change in the demographic, socioeconomic, and cultural environment, and have added opportunities to hazards as a factor influencing the cultural code. Particularly relevant from the refined model are concepts related to urbanindustrial parental strategy. While agrarian parental strategy emphasises high fertility, in an urban-industrial context it is redefined as a ‘voluntary activity demanding much more parental time, energy, and attention over a longer period of time’ (LeVine, 1988: 7). Infant care is construed more as mental and social stimulation. Early maternal attention is devoted to talking, playing with and responding to the baby, then initiating more interaction and communicating more comprehensively as the child gets older. This ‘high-intensity pattern of care’ (ibid.) points to the highly communicative nature of child care.17 This model is useful in a number of respects, including the attempt to reconcile culture and individual adaptive behaviour, recognition of the context, and parental goals, which may sometimes conflict with other influential goals (1988: 5. The last of these, and the urban-industrial ‘high intensity pattern of





Invisible work

care’ find strong echoes later in this study.) In other respects, however, it is less useful, as its conception of the family lacks depth. The emphasis on optimal parental investment strategies for allocating time, attention, and domestic resources in childrearing seems to have the same assumptions as exchange theory, namely that the agents are rational actors. The emotional part of childrearing/family life occupies a secondary role, in spite of its importance (Ingleby, 1986). There is little recognition that parents have emotions and individual experiences from their own childhood, in turn influenced by the socio-historical context of the time, which influence their goals. In reality, parents are actors with contradictions, ambiguities as well as different needs and goals other than being parents. Furthermore, the model does not recognise the gendered nature of parenting; the theoretical discussion refers to parents, although the subject of investigation is always mothers.

. Language, bilingualism18 and childrearing Language provides a focus for this study, or a ‘prism’ through which I will observe family and childrearing processes. This section has a number of purposes, first to demonstrate how significant the issue of language is for many families, especially intermarried families, and second, as in previous sections, to elicit insights or concepts which might be useful for this study. Third, it looks at how linguistic research on child language acquisition can become part of the process of childrearing in intermarried families, especially if children are being raised bilingually. Finally, it draws attention to calls from within the field to consider contexts more fully, which this study attempts to do. . A significant issue Despite the fact that about half the world’s population is estimated to be bilingual, ‘bilingualism is too often seen as incidental and has been treated as a special case or as a deviation from the norm’ (Romaine, 1995: 8). In fact, it might be argued that monolingualism is the special case, at least in many parts of the world (Mackey, 1968). This may become more the case with increased mobility of the world’s population. Language occupies a significant place in the life of intermarried families, especially mothers in their childrearing. It is central to mothers’ assigned childrearing work (LeVine, 1988), and central to women’s ‘invisible work’ in the

 

Developing a conceptual framework

family, or ‘unity making’ (DeVault, 1987).19 Even where a decision is made not to raise children bilingually, most childrearing work is still expressed through language, and the minority mother in intermarriage must normally then use her second language in childrearing. She may have to consider warnings of possible negative effects on linguistic and emotional development by bilingualchild rearing books,20 and with ‘why not’ questions asked by others. Varro (1988) suggests that success in raising children bilingually (i.e. the child becomes a productive bilingual) is becoming a requirement of ‘successful childrearing’, for two reasons: 1) in a foreign land many mothers do not have any other way of socially asserting their identity, given limited opportunities for formal employment; and 2) pressure from societal discourse — acknowledgement of the benefits of individual bilingualism, and greater value attached to multiculturalism in general. Many bilingual-child rearing books point to this to justify second language use by the mother at home; it is ‘in the best interest of the child’ (Baker, 1995:19). Thus the child’s bilingualism has, to a considerable extent, become a requirement for minority mothers in intermarriage for ‘proper childrearing’. To do this, however, they must become good language teachers (e.g. Döpke, 1988, 1992), and foster interaction and conversation even more than is already encouraged in general childrearing, which generates considerable pressures (Arnberg, 1987). They are urged to be ‘insistent’, which involves pretending, for instance, that communication failed because the child did not choose the right language, or insisting on second language use when the importance of good communication is otherwise extolled. There can be conflict here with the need to be ‘sensitive’ and ‘responsive’. And many mothers of bilingual children worry that this very insistence on second language use might hinder or delay normal development, which they are also responsible for. Finally, as Goodz (1989; 1994) points out, because of wanting to encourage children — and perhaps because of the sheer joy of hearing a child’s early verbal expressions — parents may feel it difficult or unnecessary to negate verbal output, even if it is not the ‘right’ language. All this comes on top of the specific structural situation of such mothers being minority mothers, sometimes cut off from a community that they might share values with, cut off from a kin network which could provide strong support, and with less opportunity for career realisation than majority women with similar education and qualifications,21 which limits self-satisfaction and social recognition. The nature of much of this language work is invisible, however, and char-





Invisible work

acteristically, it is a pressure on mothers but less on fathers. Mothers who fail in their language work are made to feel that they are having a negative effect on their children (cf. Fries, 1998), while fathers who make ‘extra’ efforts are praised for providing them with opportunities. Significantly, most developmental psycholinguistic studies refer only to ‘parents’, but in almost all the cases, in theoretical and empirical writings and writings for lay people, they actually mean ‘mothers’.22 This ‘invisibility’ in developmental psychology has been challenged by feminist scholars (cf. David et al., 1993, David 1993; Phoenix and Woollett, 1991b), but such criticism has yet to make an impact in the area of bilingual-child rearing. . Research traditions on bilingual children Research on bilingualism consists of three distinct areas, of which two deal exclusively with bilingual children: 1) societal bilingualism and related language contact (sociolinguistics); 2) majority language development and educational attainment of minority group school-age children (educational research); and 3) simultaneous language acquisition by young children (developmental psycholinguistic research) (cf. Romaine, 1995; Baker, 1993, 1996). The three are not mutually exclusive, but tend to be disciplinary-based in spite of long-standing calls for interdisciplinary effort (Mackey, 1968; Edward, 1985, Baetens Beardsmore, 1986; Romaine, 1995).23 Most relevant here is the last tradition, although some comments about educational research are necessary.24 Educational research generally investigates monolingual speakers of a minority language or children with very limited ability in the majority language (used in school instruction) until they come to school. While it has drawn attention to the social environment which affects childrens’ achievement and/or majority language development, family/parents have been less well integrated, with the exception of exploratory studies focusing on achievement rather than language (Marjoribanks, 1980; Verma and Ashworth, 1986). Recently, however, Schecter, Sharken-Taboada and Bayley (1996) and Schecter and Bayley (1997), noting a gap in the extant literature, looked at parental attitudes in day to day minority (Spanish) language maintenance in California and Texas. They found that parents viewed their childrens’ language behaviour in terms other than those that motivate language researchers, and showed a rich variety of understandings, rationales and strategies as they struggled to accommodate the continuities and discontinuities of their daily lives.

 

Developing a conceptual framework

Lambert and Taylor (1996), too, conducted a highly significant study which looked at Cuban American mothers’ attitudes and beliefs about the minority language, and showed that these had an important influence on childrens’ school performance, as well as their minority language development. Critically, the study showed that bilingual-child rearing enabled mothers of middle class origin to draw pride and self respect from their own heritage, which empowered them in their daily lives as minority residents in the US. Indeed, this was a vital motivation for their bilingual-child rearing. This dynamic was missing in the case of mothers of working class origin. Developmental psycholinguistics is of most direct concern here, both for its focus on children of intermarriage, and as the source of much advice on bilingual-child rearing. Early studies in this field investigated language development of a single child longitudinally, the most famous being that of Ronjat (1913), who spoke French (his native language) to his son Louis, while his wife spoke German (her native language). They spoke German to each other in front of Louis, and lived in southern France. Louis’ bilingual language development was meticulously diary-recorded until the age of five. He became a ‘productive’ (or ‘active’) bilingual, a famous success story. The basic approach of developmental psycholinguistics has been maintained over the years, although there have been methodological advancements and the scope has been broadened by theoretical advancements (De Houwer, 1995). Studies in this tradition: 1) take the form of longitudinal case studies of linguistic development; 2) investigate the researcher’s own child/children; 3) focus on early bilingual language acquisition, with exclusive selection of very young children; 4) investigate the offspring of intermarriage rather than children from immigrant families, because ‘bilingual language acquisition’ in this context refers to very early, simultaneous acquisition caused by regular and continued exposure to more than one language;25 5) focus on children’s ‘output’ (‘input’ tends to be conceptualised in quantitative terms, if at all). In other words, they have been intensely concerned with how children who are exposed to two languages — trilingualism studies are rare — from an early age (often from the very beginning of their life) develop their language, in terms of linguistic domains such as grammar, phonology, and for the psychologist, cognitive development. Recently however, in recognition of calls for greater attention to ‘inputs’, a number of studies have looked at the interaction of small groups of children and their parents, showing that parental input influences children’s language output (cf. Goodz, 1989; Lanza, 1992, 1997; Döpke, 1992; Kasuya, 1998). The conceptualisation of ‘inputs’ remains limited,





Invisible work

however, as language learning history is treated as secondary information, and inputs are mainly seen as the immediate context during the data collection (recording) period. . ‘Real world’ problems Early developmental psycholinguistic studies helped to reduce prejudice against early bilingualism by showing that it does not have necessarily a negative effect on children’s language development or overall development.26 Unlike the educational school-based research tradition, developmental psycholinguistic research: overwhelmingly demonstrates the successful establishment of productive bilingualism in young children. (Döpke, 1992:19)

However, Döpke continues: This contrasts strongly with most people’s direct experience. (ibid.)

And: It is a reality in Australia, as well as in other predominantly monolingual Western societies, that children from bilingual families often do not even start to develop an active command of the minority language in spite of their parent’s intentions to raise them bilingually. (Döpke, 1992:173)

The difficulties are acknowledged in bilingual-child rearing books (e.g. Arnberg, 1987; Harding and Riley, 1986; Baker, 1995). These books supply advice on how to foster the child’s minority language development in general, describe the course of bilingual development the child roughly follows, provide information on difficulties the family commonly encounters, how to avoid these difficulties, and so on. There are practical suggestions for audio-visual materials, types of play to foster language development, suggestions on forming play group gatherings with other minority mothers to share concerns, and how to arrange the child’s life so that the child receives maximum minority language exposure. And yet the difficulties persist. Why? The answer is complex, as we shall see during the course of this study, but frequently there is a gap between the research context which advice is based on, and that of ‘real life’ families. In the former case there is often a linguist parent at home who is interested in raising the child bilingually, and who spends considerable time towards this end as it is part of his (sometimes her in recent cases) research. There is no conflict of interests. There is also often sufficient income to hire a minority language-speaking caretaker. In real life situations, however,

 

Developing a conceptual framework

where the caretaker (mainly the mother) has other obligations such as housework or outside work in addition to attending children, conflicts of time and interest exist (Walkerdine and Lucey, 1989). It is difficult to imagine non-linguist mothers being able to spend as much time as linguist-parents fostering their children’s language development, or enjoying it as much. Financial considerations limit not only the possibility of hiring a minority language-speaking caretaker, but also trips back to the minority language-speaking country. The whole social context in which bilingual-child rearing takes place is different. Second, the researchers generally aim at theoretical insights for the field of developmental psycholinguistics, and at generating universal theories or hypotheses, rather than highly conditional theories which incorporate the complexities of real life situations would result in. ‘The immense complexity involved in studying bilingual children, and the need to take that complexity fully into account in the development of appropriate methodologies’ (De Houwer, 1995: 249) has been recognised (cf. also Romaine, 1983 and 1999, Goodz, 1988, Clyne, 1987, Genesee, 1989, Döpke, 1986 and 1988, Lanza, 1988, 1990, 1997), but by and large the claims of relevance by some researchers in their concluding comments requires a leap in logic. . Child-centredness In a challenging study, Döpke (1992) attempted to find a correlation between the extent of the parents’ instructional speech and the children’s active acquisition of the minority language. She observed five mother-child interactions and one father-child interaction twice, tape recorded them (from 57 minutes to 150 minutes), analysed them, and carried out supplementary interviews with parents about the history of their child’s linguistic development, the families’ extent of contact with the minority language, cultural activities, and the parents’ experience as bilinguals in general, and as a bilingual family in particular. According to Döpke, parental attitudes are teaching techniques: Parental utterances were considered teaching techniques when they presented the child with verbal models, rehearsed language information for the child, made pattern structures transparent, or elicited verbalisations from the child. (1988:146–147)

The study was based on the understanding that in an intermarriage context ‘one-parent one-language’ is the most reliable strategy for success, and showed a relationship between parents’ awareness of their role as language teachers and their childrens’ acquisition of the minority language. There were two signifi-





Invisible work

cant factors in productive bilingual development on the part of the child; the degree of child-centredness27 in verbal interaction, and the degree of insistence on minority language in verbal interaction. In her conclusion, Döpke acknowledged the difficulties and efforts required in raising children bilingually, and suggested that: parents who speak a minority language to their children should try and engage in playful activities with their children as much as possible. (p. 199)

Moreover: counselling or training should, therefore, be able to encourage parents to raise their level of child centredness as well as their level of teaching-oriented behaviour by incorporating more play into activities which are not primarily designed for play. (p. 199)

Thus mothers should: 1) insist on minority language use; and 2) become better language teachers by incorporating work around the house to teaching. Determination to teach the child (taken as the frequency with which parental teaching techniques are employed) should be gained individually, and the work of being a good language teacher should be learned if possible through professional counselling/training. This seemingly new approach to the study of bilingualism in fact seems to produce similar advice to more traditional studies (cf. Arnberg, 1987; Saunders, 1988; Harding and Riley, 1986). Mothers are urged to insist firmly on minority language use, but why some can do it more than others is not explored formally. As Woollett and Phoenix (1991) note, despite highly established norms of ‘child-centredness’ in childrearing in general, some mothers do not interact in this way, because ‘they are depressed or isolated, or because they do not believe that sensitivity is an important part of their relationship with the child’ (p. 39). There may be a conflict between their own needs and those of their children (Boulton, 1983). What emerges is the same process of the production of knowledge which created ‘proper motherhood’, which ignores the reality of childrens’ lives (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) as well as mothers’ lives (White and Woollett, 1992). Proper motherhood now involves not only caring for the child, but providing a stimulating and sensitive environment as well (cf. also David, 1993; Eisenstadt, 1986) . This requires: an awareness of children’s behaviour, a reasonably accurate interpretation of their behaviour, as well as prompt and appropriate responses. (Woollett and Phoenix, 1991:35)

 

Developing a conceptual framework

Child-centredness is now to be put into practice through activities such as reading to children or engaging them in conversation ‘incidentally’ as part of the everyday business of shopping, food preparation and housework.28 The discrepancy between ideal and reality forces mothers to cope with their experience in various ways, often as guilty conscience (cf. Boulton, 1983; Backett, 1982; Gordon, 1990). And advice does not extend to those mothers who have taken the child-centred advice of professionals and then experience isolation, lack of fulfilment and identity problems (Gordon, 1990). . Facing the paradox This brings us back to the context of childrearing, where invisible mothers and invisible work have been recognised in family studies, but not yet incorporated in studies of bilingualism. Rather than simply offer criticism, however, I would like to move on and look at more positive developments. First, there is a growing trend towards interdisciplinary research, which is beginning to consider the context in which bilingual-child rearing takes place, including parental influences (De Houwer, 1998a, b; Lanza, 1997; Kasuya, 1998; Goodz, 1994), and gendered childrearing is beginning to be seen as an influence on bilingual childrearing (Lanza, 1997). In Japan researchers such as Yamamoto (1996) and Goebel-Noguchi (1999) are interested in the family context and note the emotional effort required by parents in bilingual-child rearing. This study attempts to explore these issues systematically. Second, the difficulties described above are not simply attributable to poorly developed interdisciplinary communication. They are also related to the goal of generalisability and replicability. And here we face what Freeland (1998), in her gendered socio-linguistic study of language and linguistic diversity in South America, describes as a paradox. Research whose claims to generalisability give it authority and legitimacy visa-vis governments and policy makers is almost by definition research which takes least account of its subjects’ agendas, whereas research which attends to the local and historical peculiarities and felt needs of groups and communities is too particular to be the basis of large-scale policy making. (p.173)

There is a similar paradox between an emphasis on theoretical development, of the type which requires replicability (De Houwer, 1998a) on the one hand, and relevance for the people acknowledged to have diverse experiences on the other. This paradox may be found in many disciplines, but it would be safe to say that it is only beginning to be confronted in linguistics and psycholinguistic





Invisible work

studies of bilingualism, and hence the process of conceptualising and integrating the context has been difficult. My own preference is to follow Freeland’s advice and build up knowledge through addressing contexts which fully acknowledge peoples’ agendas, difficulties and needs.

. Concluding comments In this chapter I have reviewed research traditions in studies of the family, ethnicity, and bilingualism. Given the vast literature in each of these fields, the account was by necessity a broad-brush one and not exhaustive, but it clarified a number of points. First, some of the conceptual tools which can help to understand the complexities of intermarried families, can be found within family studies. Particularly significant for this study is the ‘life course’ approach, which enables various levels of analysis to be explored simultaneously. This approach has been acknowledged as an important way of looking at ethnically diverse families. Second, in the area of ethnicity, an understanding of ‘situational ethnicity’ will help to overcome many objections to the misuse of culture and ethnicity, particularly with regards Japanese women and childrearing. Third, developmental psycholinguistic research has demonstrated that the establishment of productive bilingualism is possible, but has yet to explore convincingly why this contrasts with most intermarried families’ direct experience. Incorporating the conceptual tools from family studies and ethnicity studies may provide a way to do this. All three fields appear to be moving closer, and some cross-fertilisation is taking place. I attempt to locate this study in this trend. Intermarried families are not unusual, and looking at language use offers a prism with which to examine the complexities of family dynamics. Ethnicity is said to be reproduced most strongly in the context of the family. Bilingual-child rearing takes place in the context of the family. Here I see the family as a ‘place’ where priorities for various needs are negotiated and arranged, both individually and collectively. The priorities themselves are constructed through various influences operating simultaneously. The priorities, processes and influences are often ‘invisible’, however. The challenge is to develop a methodology through which they gain greater visibility. It is to this challenge that I now turn.

 

Developing a conceptual framework

Notes . Berheide, 1984; Chester, 1985; Edgell, 1980; Morris, 1985 and 1990; Glenn, 1987; Delphy and Leonard, 1992; Ferree, 1990; Devault, 1987; Morgan, 1990; Yeandle, 1984; Komter, 1989. . McKee, 1982; Boulton, 1983; Backett, 1982; Clulow, 1987; Cohen, 1977. . Morris, 1990; Berheide, 1984; Glenn, 1987; Ferre, 1990. . Cf. also Boulton, 1983; McKee, 1982; DeVault, 1987. . Bernard (1972) pointed out the existence of two marriages — ‘his’ and ‘hers’ — while Cowan et al. (1985) described ‘his’ and ‘her’ transition to parenthood, and added ‘their’, suggesting different perceptions of everyday life. . Intermarriage here refers to marriage between individuals of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. The terms, ‘inter-national’, ‘inter-ethnic’ and ‘inter-racial’, with variations of ‘dual’, ‘cross’ and ‘mixed’ instead of ‘inter’ are used according to the particular emphasis in, and context of, the particular research (Rohrrich, 1988; Cottrell, 1973). ‘Intermarriage’ here is an umbrella term. In subsequent chapters, however, it will refer to the more restricted inter-national marriage (cf. next footnote), since the study primarily concerns this type. . Cottrell used the term ‘cross-national’ marriage to eliminate ‘inter-group marriage’ involving immigrant groups. In her definition, cross-national marriage has two characteristics, 1) the partners usually continue to maintain ties (e.g. citizenship) to both countries, 2) the couple may live in a third country. She also argues against the simple equation of crossnational and cross-cultural: ‘Since most nations are ethnically diverse one cannot assume that a cross-national marriage will necessarily involve very different cultures even if the dominant cultures in the two nations are very different’ (Cottrell, 1990:152). . Phinny and Alipuria, 1996; Cauce et al., 1992; Gibbs and Hines, 1992; Johnson, 1992; Hall, 1992. . Okita (1996) is an exploratory study of the language choices of nine Japanese mothers resident long-term in the UK. The mothers’ own childhoods, as well as work and marital arrangements, links with ‘Japan’, and personal aspirations, were shown to be important influences on language choice. . Ballard (1979) describes young Asians who ‘can move confidently both the Asian and British worlds, but the majority continue to feel that their roots lie in the resources of Asian culture’ (p. 128). . Cf. Bhachu (1993); Phoenix (1990, 1994); Woollett et al. (1994); Allen (1994). . Bhachu (1993), too, suggests from her study of migrant women that identities are contextualised and not stable, shifting according to the forces that operate on them. . Cf. also Clancy (1986) and Wolf et al., 1996. . Writing in this volume, Gjerde (1996) avoids the deterministic use of culture that characterises much of the book in favour of a more fluid conception of concerns that people carry with them in their daily lives which can be expressed, displayed or negotiated.





Invisible work . Azuma (1996) also reflects that the Japanese researchers struggled with the framework, but not only were the main disciplinary tools American in origin, but the bulk of the funding as well, which had a subtle influence on their acceptance of the framework. . The first approach is represented by anthropologists such as Caudill (Caudill and Weinstein, 1969), who emphasised the values that parents of different cultures based their child care on, and how these values influenced their behaviour; and the second by psychologist Bowlby (1969) who emphasised infant-care-taker attachment, which constitutes a universal context, constraining variation in parents’ behaviour. . Empirical studies have shown a diversity within the two categories (agrarian and urbanindustrial; Richman et. al. 1988; Hoffman, 1988), particularly linked to time lags in development, but also to different societal factors, such as a strong connection between childcare and the social network or mutual assistance in some societies (West, 1988). . Many different definitions of ‘bilingualism’ exist, from being able to speak two languages with ‘native-like control’ to alternate use of two or more languages. The various definitions may be valid for specific circumstances, but no single statement satisfactorily and exclusively defines bilingualism. The phenomenon itself is very diverse (Romaine, 1995, 1999; Baker, 1993, 1996). ‘The essential distinction is therefore between ability and use’ (Baker, 1993: 5). In this study bilingualism will refer to using more than one language in day-to-day life. . It is not difficult to imagine potential difficulties when mothers have to use two languages to create and maintain a sense of ‘unity’ in the family, particularly when their use could be perceived as divisive. . These include speaking to the children in incomplete language, thus providing an insufficient model as well as insufficient communication, and future difficulties when the child reaches puberty (Baker, 1995; Arnberg, 1987; Harding and Riley, 1986). . There are some exceptions (e.g. Imamura, 1990). One example is American wives in Nigeria who could teach English without special qualifications, which would not have been possible in their home country. . The word ‘mother’ hardly appears in bilingual-child rearing books except when referring a specific mother. In indexes, ‘parent’ is listed with lots of sub-sections, and ‘father’ appears, but not ‘mother’, except for ‘mother tongue’. . The International Symposium of Bilingualism (1997, Newcastle, UK.) had as its main theme ‘Fostering Interdisciplinary Research’. . The first tradition — sociolinguistic studies — has recently started to influence psycholinguistic studies, as we shall see, but only in a limited way. . Language exposure in monolingual families with a language different to that outside the home (often the case in immigrant families) falls outside this tradition. . The prejudice had two sources, the distorted understanding of problems of immigrant children at school, and the ‘common sense’ notion that simultaneous acquisition of more than one language is confusing to the child. These beliefs were formed in when there was insufficient awareness of the social context of childrens’ development, and marginality was supposed to be rare, and implied something deviant or wrong.

 

Developing a conceptual framework

. ‘Child-centredness is described by Döpke as ‘sensitivity to the child’s focus of attention, structurally as well as with respect to content’ (1992:189). . For a detailed analysis, see Tizard and Hughes (1984) and Walkerdine and Lucey (1989).



 

Research methods

Introduction How do mother’s and father’s values and aspirations concerning childrearing come together in ethnically intermarried families, what structural and situational characteristics influence this process, and how are language decisions and practice located in this process? Tackling this question requires research methods which are both sensitive to subjective views, and able to place these in broader contextual frameworks. It requires methods which are able to value diversity and on this basis seek common patterns, rather than impose a predetermined framework which marginalises differences. And the methods must make it possible to explore largely invisible processes and influences. The importance of sensitive methods cannot be over-emphasised, and this chapter explores these issues in some detail. The first section discusses methodological issues. It suggests that multiple research methods are necessary, first to explore some of the characteristics of Japanese-British intermarried families in the UK in a general sense, and then to provide in-depth, qualitative insights. The former is done through an exploratory survey, and the latter through in-depth interviews based on the life history method developed in family studies. The second section discusses these research methods, and concretely how I conducted the research, problems encountered, and how they were resolved. Most attention in this section is on the in-depth interview stage of the research, as the procedure for conducting the survey is discussed in Chapter 4. The interviewing process is considered in detail because it is vital for forming judgements about the validity of data. The third section looks at data analysis, including the partial use of grounded theory, and the final section, by way of conclusion, considers questions of reliability, validity and generalisability. I repeat that this study does not aim to produce or amplify formal theory, based on consideration of a limited number of variables, or supported by a



Invisible work

sample representative of the population in question. Rather, it aims to produce conditional substantive theory, and theoretical generalisation, which suggests how and why things happen in specific settings, thus enabling us to consider ‘lessons for other settings’ (Mason, 1996).

.

Methodological Issues

. Multiple method strategy This study uses a multiple method research strategy, namely an exploratory survey and in-depth interviews. In her advocative essay on ‘mixing methods’, Brannen (1992) emphasises the importance of such strategies, generally understood as ‘more than one method of investigation and hence more than one type of data’ (p. 11). Multiple methods, particularly quantitative and qualitative methods, produce different types of data, allowing researchers ‘to explore their intellectual puzzles in a rounded and multifaceted way’ (Mason, 1996:149). The term ‘triangulation’ is often used, following Denzin, (1970), but the term is potentially misleading, as it suggests a technique for checking out one method against another (Mason, 1996). Instead, as Mason notes elsewhere: We have often been asked if the findings of our qualitative study ‘contradict’ our survey data. That is the wrong question in the sense that the two parts of the study were not designed to validate each other. They give data on different things, so the relationship between them cannot be one of confirmation or contradiction, although they may contain themes which are similar or distinct. (1994:109; cf. also Bryman, 1992)

The main part of this study, which most directly addresses the research questions, is the second stage — in-depth interviews. Brannen suggests that where quantitative methods are subsidiary to qualitative ones, they tend to fulfil three types of function: 1) providing background data to contextualise small-scale intensive studies; 2) testing hypotheses thrown up by qualitative work; and 3) providing a basis for the sampling of cases for the qualitative work (1992: 27–28). In this study, they fulfil the first and third of these functions, but not the second. In addition they fulfil a function not mentioned by Brannen, namely helping to refine the interview issues and approach for the in-depth interviews. The first stage of the research sought to gain a broad picture of JapaneseBritish intermarried families in the UK. There is little existing data to draw upon here, and the proposed method was that of an exploratory questionnaire

 

Research methods

survey. There were 54,649 Japanese nationals living in the UK and registered with the Japanese Embassy in London as of October, 1998. Of these, 6,872 were long-term residents (simply called ‘residents’) — 1,768 males, and 5,104 females (Japan Information and Cultural Centre mimeo). Although figures are not available, many are likely to be married to British nationals. There are no doubt others in this situation, too, not registered with the embassy, or who have given up their Japanese nationality. In fact, it is impossible to know with any accuracy the population of Japanese-British intermarried families in the UK, and accordingly any form of ‘representative sampling’ would run into problems. As the objective of the survey is exploratory — to present a broad picture, refine the interview questions and approach, and identify informants for the next stage of the research — and not to analyse a representative sample of a population, or facts from a carefully selected random sample, this does not present a problem. Representative sampling would not necessarily be the most effective way either to generate data which address the research questions, or to develop analysis and theory (Mason, 1996: 91). The pursuit of representativeness often requires the construction of very large samples which make the use of qualitative data generation methods very time consuming and costly (and in many instances impossible to achieve). It also requires close prior specification of the variables under investigation. The patterns observed in data generated from a representative sample may therefore necessarily be rather superficial, and this approach does not readily facilitate the detailed exploration of social processes. To borrow the words of Dilworth-Anderson et al.: While this research [survey] has been a rich source of descriptive data, it has not provided the conceptual foundation needed to develop culturally sensitive theories on diversity and families. (Dilworth-Anderson et al. 1993b:241)

This is because: …the [predetermined]concepts and measures do not capture the culturally relevant features of ethnic/racial minority family life. (ibid.)

This caution is particularly relevant when it comes to ‘Japanese culture’, which suffers from entrenched stereotypes. The authors propose: … that in collaboration with survey research, grounded theorizing, a method that generates culturally relevant concepts, be used. (ibid.)

For this reason the second stage of the research employs a qualitative method, not that of grounded theory per se, but primarily the life history method, as developed in family studies.





Invisible work

. Life history method

Learning from family studies There is a strong emphasis in family studies on qualitative methods. As Daly (1997: 3) notes: ‘Qualitative methods are particularly amenable to the study of this unique social group.’ Mansfield and Collard argue that ‘large-scale surveys of family life have never been able to provide any understanding of processes within the family’ (1988: 40, emphasis mine), while Edgell (1980) pointed out that in conjugal role research, the complexity of the variables involved inevitably makes the research exploratory. Of the various qualitative approaches used in studying the family, the life course approach is particularly suitable. It sensitises researchers to the need to see individuals in their wider social and historical context, as well as to appreciate fully the complexity and diversity of individual experiences. It offers ways to the researcher of moving between different levels in the analysis, as well as guiding and stimulating data generation. Differences and variations between families can be appreciated rather than treated as marginal. Life history method As a method within the life course approach, I use the life history method, through in-depth interviews. Both theoretically, and from experience in previous research (Okita, 1996), this promises to be most effective and valid method in answering my research questions. ‘Grounded theory’ is incorporated in the analysis phase, for reasons outlined later. Despite its rather marginal position, the life history method has a long history in qualitative research. Its marginality derives from difficulties concerning ‘validity’ in a ‘scientific’ sense. It also appears loose, and open to diverse understandings (Plummer, 1983; Armstrong, 1987; Mandelbaum, 1982; Burgess, 1982; Denzin, 1970 and 1978). Nevertheless, it is one of the most effective methods for understanding human behaviour and social change, and especially the interaction between them (Plummer, 1983). As C. Wright Mills stressed in his classic work on sociology: Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both (Mills, 1959:3).

Mills argued that ‘sociological imagination’ helps us to understand the active inter-relationship between an individual’s life history and the history of a society. He emphasised the value of the life history ‘as a source of knowledge and

 

Research methods

understanding of the social world’ (op. cit. p. 11). The fact that life history is mainly based on individuals’ subjective views has led to debate over its viability for social science research, but its strengths have been acknowledged, and efforts have been made to establish a ‘life history’ methodology for social research. Because parental values are subjectively constructed, understanding ‘why’ requires an understanding of their perceptions of the world, their past, and future prospects. The life history method is a gateway to getting closer to these. It is also a gateway to another focus of inquiry in this research — continuous decision-making about language use in the family. Language decisions are made in an individual’s specific context, but they are also deeply situated in the social history of the time. The life history method: enables us to see our subjects as if they have a past with success as well as failures, and a future with hopes and fears. It allows us to see an individual in relation to the history of his time, and how he is influenced by the various religious, social, psychological and economic currents present in his world. It permits us to view the intersection of the life history of men [sic.] with the history of their society, thereby enabling us to understand better the choices, contingencies and options given to the individual. (Bogdan, 1974:4, emphasis mine)

To go beyond a static understanding of parental values, and language choice and use in intermarriage families, it is essential to conceptualise individuals as active agents with constraints and incentives specific to their social-historical context. The life history method enables this perspective is incorporated in every phase of the study. Armstrong also argues that the life history method is ‘an ideal vehicle for exposing “hidden” control over human actions’ (1987: 12). It permitted Burgoyne and Clark (1984) to conceptualise the hidden forces operating in society on step families. As this study examines rather invisible processes and influences, it is particularly relevant here, too. Indeed, for the life historian there are no simple or better questions to generally pose than ‘What is this person worrying about here? What is this person trying to do? What is it that is motivating this person? What is it that forces them on?’ (Plummer, 1983:55)

Life history method in family studies 1 From interviews of wives and husbands Burgoyne and Clark attempted to gather ‘independent accounts of their “common” experiences, i.e. meeting, courtship, the decision to remarry and their subsequent life together’ (p. 51), and from this emerged discrepancies. They made it clear that their purpose was ‘not to “catch





Invisible work

them out” nor was it an attempt to discover what “actually” happened’ (ibid.). Instead, they sought: to understand how different emphases, beliefs and ultimately, personal theories and ideologies about family life might emerge in the context of the interview. (p. 51)

In this study I have tried to capture how these different emphases, beliefs and personal theories interacted with each other and created the parents’ experiences of childrearing. Separate life history interviews in this study are rooted in this framework. On ‘choice’, too, David, West and Ribbens (1994) showed the importance of the life history method in understanding choices people made for children, in this case choice of secondary school after a change in the system. Their study showed that choices are not simply made on the basis of institutional change (i.e. change in social context), but are deeply connected with the life histories of the parents themselves. My previous study (1996) on language choice for children in Japanese-British intermarried families also showed that the issues of childrearing and language choice are closely related to the individual’s (mother’s) life history. The life history method can reveal the complicated relationships operating in parental choices.

Its adaptation to this study To date, there have been two main approaches to the life history method. One has been to focus on one individual’s story which produces an intensive and comprehensive understanding of one person’s life. The other has been to ‘collect multiple biographies within the same or similar area of research’ (Armstrong, 1987:21). According to Polkinghorne (1995), in both cases narrative — by which he refers to the text (the story) that is thematically organised by plot (thematic thread — constitutes the data, but it is analysed in different ways. In the former, narrative (data) consists of actions, events and happenings, but its analysis produces stories (biographies, histories, case studies). This approach moves from elements to stories and produces knowledge of a particular situation (p. 20). In the latter, multiple studies data ‘consists of narratives or stories, but whose analysis produces paradigmatic typologies or categories’ (op. cit. p. 5). It moves further from stories to common elements and produces knowledge of concepts. This approach is called paradigmatic analysis of narrative which ‘seeks to locate common themes or conceptual manifestations among the stories collected as data’ (Polkinghorne, 1995: 13). The researcher develops concepts

 

Research methods

from the data rather than imposing previous theoretically derived concepts. My study utilises the latter — ‘multiple approach’ with paradigmatic analysis — which makes it possible for key concepts to emerge in the course of research. The second level of analysis seeks to identifies the relationships among those categories. In this process, Polkinghorne notes the strengths and limitations of the paradigmatic approach : The strength of paradigmatic procedures is their capacity to develop general knowledge about a collection of stories. This kind of knowledge, however, is abstract and formal, and by necessity underplays the unique and particular aspect of each story. (1995:18)

As discussed below, I try to avoid this limitation in the analysis phase by incorporating variations and diversity of data through grounded theory’s rigorous conceptualising procedures. Without incorporating this variation and diversity, the data fails to give conceptual richness to analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1994). Without rigorous conceptualising procedures, however, this cannot be done effectively. Despite this ungeneralisable aspect of life history, cogent generalisations about a single account and comparative generalisations about many life histories, across cultural lines, can usefully be made. (Mandelbaum, 1982:150)

. In-depth semi-structured interviews The life history method in this study utilises in-depth semi-structured interviews of mothers and fathers — also a widely-adopted method in family studies.2 Fontana and Frey note that ‘interviewing is one of the most common and most powerful ways we use to try to understand our fellow human beings’ (1994: 361). Reinharz, too, observes: ‘Interviewing offers researchers access to peoples’ ideas, thoughts and memories in their own words rather than in the words of the researcher’ (1992: 19). In studies of the family, interviewing has played an important role in looking at specific aspects of womens’ lives, such as childrearing practices, reproductive choices, customs relating to marriage and pregnancy in younger women (cf. C. Williams, 1995; Woollett, 1994 and 1995; Bhachu, 1993; Phoenix, 1990). The life history method not only inherently demands an in-depth approach to interviews, it also requires the researcher to conceptualise interviewing as social interaction. In this framework, as Mason argues by using the expression ‘generating’ instead of ‘collecting’ data, the researcher’s task is :





Invisible work

‘not simply work out where to find data which already exists in a collectable state. Instead you work out how best you can generate data from your chosen data sources. (1996:36)

The researcher is not collecting data neutrally but generating it interactionally, by making decisions about how best the data can be generated to answer questions. In-depth interviewing is most effective for this. Woollett chose the semistructured interview to explore Asian womens’ experiences (in the UK) in childbirth, childrearing and reproductive choice, and how they saw themselves as Asian Women, taking care to allow the women ‘to answer the questions at their own pace and encouraging them to reflect on and explain their answers to questions’ (1994:121). The semi-structured interview involves asking pre-set questions, but as Gilligan suggests, there need be no contradiction between this and having the interviewee take the lead (in Reinharz, 1992). Reinharz evaluates Gilligan’s method of interviewing as ‘follow the language and logic of the person’s thought, with the interviewer asking further questions in order to clarify the meaning of a particular response’ (op. cit., p.42). This form of interviewing needs particular skills, such as a clear conceptualisation of the research questions to enable the researcher make on the spot decisions about how to respond and proceed, because it does not have standardised questions. It also requires simultaneous orchestration of the ‘intellectual and social dynamics’ of the situation (Mason, 1996: 43). These skills are essential for ensuring the success of generating data through in-depth semistructured interviews.

. Research Methods This section describes the ‘nuts and bolts’ of doing the research, rather than why some nuts and bolts are more appropriate than others (cf. Andrews, 1991:42). . Survey: ‘Family and Language Questionnaire’ The first stage uses an exploratory survey to gain a broad picture of JapaneseBritish intermarried families in the UK. Although it was exploratory, it was formulated around some guiding hypotheses, which were based on my earlier research on initial language decisions by Japanese mothers in intermarried

 

Research methods

families (Okita, 1996). The objective was not to provide definitive answers to the hypotheses, or to measure language use and proficiency, except in the broadest sense. The objective, rather, was to provide a broad overview, to refine the research questions and approach, and to identify a group of informants for the next stage of the research — the in-depth interviews. Since there was little information on the overall population, and certainly no master list or representative group from which sampling might be carried out, a variety of sources were used to construct a sample, the main one being an association of Japanese women married to non-Japanese men and living in the UK. The procedure is outlined in more detail in Chapter 4. A total of 273 questionnaires were distributed, and 139 returned (a 51% return rate), of which data from 92 Japanese wife — British husband couples with children are analysed. Input from both husbands and wives, particularly through the final open question, enabled me to refine my approach, and also to construct criteria for selecting the families to be interviewed. . Second stage informants Seventy five respondents to the survey indicated a willingness to co-operate further in the study. Two main conditions were considered in selecting a list of possible informants from these. One was the mother’s length of residence in the UK. A minimum of five years was set to ensure that she was not a new arrival, and that her time outside Japan was sufficient for the development of reflective thoughts on her experiences. The second was the potential for both parents’ input. Cases in which the mother reported difficulty obtaining her partner’s co-operation in filling out the questionnaire were excluded. Families in which the parents were separated were not automatically excluded if the father was willing to participate, but were excluded where there was almost no contact. These conditions reduced the number from 75 to 36. At this stage I made two lists, one in order of the mother’s age, and the other in order of the first child’s age (which ranged from 28 to 1). I had still not decided which to use for approaching informants. It was clear from my earlier study that the experiences of older mothers were quite different from those of younger mothers, both in terms of their own upbringing, and their early childrearing experiences. The survey analysis also showed the age of the mother to be an important variable in language use. However, after analysis of responses to the final open question of the questionnaire, I decided on the latter (age of first child), as it would provide a more suitable base from which to consider stages in family





Invisible work

life, such as early childrearing and starting school. In addition, it was more appropriate when considering the participation of fathers, as it would not automatically slant the study towards mothers’ experiences (see Chapter 4, Section 7). The next consideration was how to approach these families systematically. One possibility was to divide the families into groups, such as those with older children and those with younger children, divided at around age five, since the questionnaire responses showed that greater use of English sometimes happened after this age. However, hypotheses for organising and justifying this procedure were not sufficiently clear. Again, I realised that the study was exploratory, rather than a test of formal hypotheses. I finally decided to approach the families from the top of the list — families with older children, who were less numerous — and proceed towards the bottom. This would offer a greater chance to generate rich data relating to change and the process of change, which older families were more likely to have gone through, in addition to data relating to the immediate issues of language decisions and use in younger families. While ambitious, this decision would maximise insights relating to the socio-historical context.

Proceeding with the interviews After formulating the interview guide, conducting pilot interviews (discussed below) and modifying the interview guide, I began to contact the families with older children. This did not proceed as neatly as I had hoped. Some families had children who were preparing GCSE or A-level exams, and wanted me to wait until they were over. Some parents had an extremely busy period in their work. In practice, then, interviewing proceeded basically from the top of the list, but with a great deal of flexibility so that as many families as possible could participate. Participant families Twenty eight families participated in the in-depth study. Of these, twenty three participated fully — both parents were interviewed — while in the remaining five families, only the mothers participated, for various reasons, including difficulties in the couple’s relationship at the time of interview which prevented the mother from approaching her partner (mothers were the gate keepers in the recruiting process of interviewees). Others had been a single mother at the beginning, and later married their current partner, and did not want me to question them about childrearing. In addition, eight children from five families were interviewed (see ‘in-depth interviews’ below). Tables 3–1 and 3–2 give

 

Research methods

a broad picture of the participant families. Summary information and names used are given in Appendix 1.)3 Table 3.1 First child’s age in participant families First child’s age

number of families

19 – 16 –18 11–15 5 –10 1– 4

23 26 25 10 24

total

28

Table 3.2 Parents’ age in participant families age group

mothers

fathers

50– 40–49 30–39 –29

23 12 11 22

26 10 27 20

total

28

23

. Pilot interviews Before approaching the families with older children, I conducted several pilot interviews (two older and two younger families) to check the interview guide and planned tasks (see below). I had to check whether the time required would be realistic and acceptable for other prospective participants, and I wanted to see whether the main guiding questions would work as I intended. Some modifications were made as a result.

Dropping the childrearing portrait task and joint interview Initially I wanted to include other methods, such as a childrearing portrait task and a joint discussion interview of the parents, but these proved impractical because they required too much time to generate data, and would have limited the time available for in-depth interviews, which generated the core data. I had to rush or limit the time to do the tasks, and also push the pace for joint interviews. Although the informants seemed to enjoy the task very much, and some enjoyed the joint discussion interview, for time reasons both had to be abandoned. I did, however, retain a social network map task for mothers on the





Invisible work

assumption that I would be interviewing them twice. This was intended to encourage them to think and talk about their social network. Again because of time pressures, particularly with the mothers interviewed only once, I later stopped this, and incorporated the data generated into the interview data.

Shaping up the interview guides Modification of the interview guides proceeded at the same time. Time limitations made it a real challenge to be open and flexible in guiding the interview, but to elicit what was relevant and influential for individual parents. As a result, more abstract and broad questions were omitted. These tended to elicit many questions from the interviewees, who wanted the questions more tightly defined so that they could give relevant answers. Instead I opted for more specific questions at the start, with prompts and encouragement to subsequently expand on the answers. In doing so, I tried my best to be flexible and signal to the participants that I was willing to listen to anything they thought was relevant in talking about their experiences. Thus my interview guides were not sets of questions to go through, but an aide memoire, to help me keep on track during the very demanding interviewing process. Lastly, throughout the pilot and subsequent interviews, the need to make on the spot decisions about the contents and sequence (Mason, 1996) was greater than I had anticipated. I intended to look at diversity in childrearing experiences and language use. In reality this meant having to be prepared to deal with that diversity in the interview situation, and make decisions on what was relevant and what was not. Often it was a matter of what was more relevant. As Mason suggested, being conceptually clear about the research questions helped in making those decisions. Finally, it was important to perceive myself as creating interaction and generating the data, to remain reflexive in the interviewing process. (This was also vital in the analysis process.) Interviewing, in short, was a balancing act of making use of interview guides to generate relevant data, while being creative, sensitive and flexible in accepting departures from those carefully-prepared guides. . In-depth interviews (parents) Contact with the mothers was made by telephone (in Japanese) and interviews were arranged in advance. I introduced myself and thanked them for their cooperation with the questionnaire and for consenting to participate further. I arranged a time to visit which was either in the morning while the children

 

Research methods

were at school, or for young families, during the weekend when the other parent could look after the children. The interviews mostly took place at the informant’s house at a time convenient for the informants. Three interviews with husbands took place at their office during the lunch hour, as it was more convenient for them. As much as possible a tape recorder was used, with consent, which allowed me to engage in the conversation fully without the need to take detailed notes. Rough notes were taken, however, to record thoughts emerging from the conversation, and to write questions to be asked on future occasions. Most interviewees appeared not to be intimidated by the presence of the tape recorder, and after a while, they seemed not bothered at all. Some colleagues had expressed concern about whether Japanese womens’ culture would allow the mothers to talk freely, but this concern proved unnecessary. One father refused to be recorded, saying he preferred to speak to a person rather than to a machine. I accepted this with his consent to a possible prolongation of the interview time to allow for note-taking. Separate interviews of mothers and fathers were conducted in private as much as possible, although on some occasions it was not possible. Younger children sometimes interrupted or needed tending to (seven families had children who were two years old or younger). One mother asked me to bring my son (five years old) for her husband’s interview because she wanted to present it as a friendly visit rather than a research interview. This was one of the few older families which had older children who were still speaking Japanese, and I felt it important to comply. Inevitably the interview was less formal as a result. Another mother asked me to bring my children for her husband’s interview in the weekend for similar reasons. Forty four interviews were conducted with 28 mothers. Fourteen were interviewed twice and one three times. All the interviews with mothers were conducted in Japanese, with English occasionally used when it was easier to communicate an idea. Each interview lasted from two hours to three and a half hours, making the total interview time for each interviewee from two to six and a half hours. Fathers (23) were all interviewed once, mostly at home. Interviews lasted from one to three hours. One father, who was separated from his wife, did not want to have a face-to-face interview, but agreed to talk over the telephone. Although this was more difficult than a face-to-face interview, once the interview started, he talked without difficulty, and I felt it was a valuable interview.

Research relationships Again, it is important to conceptualise interviewing as a process of social inter-





Invisible work

action, which can generate very different kinds of data depending on who is conducting the interview and how it is constructed and carried out. Very different kinds of data would have been generated if the interviewer were a male academic in his 50s on the one hand, or a young school leaver female with no experience of marriage or raising children on the other.4 In this case the interviewer was a female social science researcher/student in her late 30s, with young children (age 3 and 5) and a non-Japanese husband living in the UK, with past experience of working with special needs children. This information was relayed to the interviewees as outlined below. I had a one page introduction sheet which I went through with the fathers at the beginning of the interview for reasons of limited time, and which I tried to cover with the mothers in a more natural conversational way during the interview. This included the purpose and procedure of the interview, confidentiality and some information about myself so that interviewees had a better idea who they were talking to. It showed that I had been living in the UK for around ten years, had two young children, my age, and brief reasons as to why I was doing the research. A little chat, especially about my children seemed to serve as an ‘ice breaker’, as well as for ‘positioning.’5 Although limited time was a constant concern, time spent answering basic questions about my partner, when I came to live in the UK and so on, was time well spent to create rapport and to raise the quality of the relationship at an early stage. It also created confidence on the interviewee’s part that there was a basis for understanding what they might tell me. I took special care to present the study as a learning experience (for me), not an inquisition about childrearing and bilingualism. In Japan, successful childrearing is often associated with a woman’s sense of adequacy, and literature on bilingualism sometimes gives the impression that not raising children bilingually in mixed marriages is in a sense a failure for parents. I explained that the purpose of the interview was to understand their childrearing experiences, and how each family decided on language use and experienced it, since this is so little understood. As Brown and Gilligan (1992) said of their research: ‘Our explicit reason for talking with the girls was to learn from them about girls’ experiences’ (p.26). My purpose was ‘to learn from parents about parents’ experiences.’ A necessary requirement was not to present the interview as threatening or judgmental.6 On the one hand I had to try to give the interviewees freedom to talk and explore any thoughts that appeared in their mind, without fear of being judged. On the other hand, my capability to understand them also had to be conveyed.

 

Research methods

The two were balanced by articulating differences and commonalties between us. When the interviewee was significantly older than me, I could present myself as someone less experienced in the area of childrearing who wanted to hear their experience without judging it.7 This positioning helped to avoid the problem mentioned by Oakley (1981a) of interviewees asking the interviewer many questions. Here the interviewees were the ones with the experience and knowledge. When the interviewee was about the same age as me, I could present myself as someone sharing contemporary experiences of childrearing in intermarriage. When mothers were much younger than me (there were just two in their twenties, and no fathers) I felt it took longer to establish a comfortable relationship in which they were less constrained or hesitant. This is partly related to characteristics of the Japanese language, discussed below.

Interviewing fathers In general it was more difficult to interview fathers than mothers, partly because of the language used for the interview (English is my second language), partly because of the shorter time available, and partly because I was talking to someone with whom I felt did not have as much in common. This was particularly the case with older fathers, in their fifties. Arrangements for interviews compounded the difficulty. Normally I did the mother’s interview first so that I could collect some basic information, as I would have more time with her. This worked well, but it was difficult then to immediately switch from Japanese to English, and an English style of communication, and to present myself as a researcher. From the pilot interviews I found it necessary to position myself as being equal and a little distant to fathers, and to distinguish myself from their partner by presenting myself clearly as a researcher. This was quite different from positioning with the mothers, in which being close helped them to talk about themselves. The fathers, however, were all co-operative, interested in the research, and some tried to put me at ease by making jokes. During the interview In the case of fathers, too, I made it clear at the beginning that I had came to hear their story, not simply to obtain answers to questions I had made. With limited time, however, some were concerned to help me to get through my questions, and their answers were sometimes brief, although I tried to elicit more contextual information. It was easier, on the other hand, to get mothers to talk freely, perhaps because for some my visit was a rare opportunity to talk or have a chat in





Invisible work

Japanese with a Japanese woman. The younger mothers, especially, seemed to appreciate the opportunity to talk in detail with someone who could appreciate what they were going through. Older mothers’ experiences extended over many years, and at the beginning they were not sure how much detail I wanted. After probes and encouragement during their responses, they started to talk more in detail about childrearing. While they talked about their children and their partners, however, it seemed relatively difficult for them to talk about themselves — their own aspirations — without further prompts from me. Although the topics did not appear unfamiliar or difficult, a common utterance from the mothers when clarification was sought was: ‘Well, I never thought about it.’ Or when asked, ‘Was it related to the experience you’ve just told me about?’ they commented ‘It might be…. I never thought about it like that.’ Most mothers apologised at the end saying ‘Was it all right? It seems the story went everywhere. Do you think it was useful, really?’ (This is also a common way of showing courtesy in Japanese.) They seemed relieved when told that everything was very useful. Some of the mothers expressed appreciation at being given the chance to reflect upon family, childrearing and language matters.8 Fathers also asked me whether I managed to hear what I planned to hear from them. Since all of the interviews with fathers were time-constrained single interviews, they often said I could phone them if I wanted further clarification. When the mothers started to talk about their life, especially before marriage, and the fathers started to talk about the beginning of their fatherhood, they became more engaged in the interview (cf. Brown and Gilligan, 1992). Though the interview often went into very private spheres of their life, this was guided by the interviewees, though sometimes I asked them for clarification. They did not appear to be threatened, though some showed distress when relating their own childhood.

Debriefing — getting feedback and rounding off In her influential study on parents with severely disabled children, Voysey (1975) emphasised situating the interview as social interaction, and the need to be aware of participants as experiencing the interview situation (cf. also Blumer, 1969). The final stage of the interview — ‘debriefing’ (LaRossa and LaRossa, 1981) — is very important: We are getting valuable data about how the couple approached the study. Ask them what they thought about the study, how they would have done it differently, what they liked and disliked… (LaRossa and LaRossa, 1981:245–246).

 

Research methods

At the end, I asked the parents if there was anything that I should have been asking. Indeed, some participants, fathers in particular, started talking about more private matters such as about their parents, parents in law, and their childhood experiences, at this stage of the interviewing, or after the interview was formally finished. LaRossa and LaRossa also advise ending the debriefing by: Use their response to find out what they were most anxious about and then reduce that anxiety. Reiterate the fact that their names will not be used. (p. 246)

I attempted to do this also, as an ethical consideration.

Reflection — ethical considerations I imagined that younger mothers’ circumstances would be within my range of imagination, and felt more confident in preparing myself to interview them than to interview the older mothers. I was less familiar with the lives of older mothers, in terms of their experiences in Japan when they grew up, their experiences in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s, and their experiences of bringing up older children. This made these interviews more stressful. Although I was reasonably sensitised to the depth and diversity of situations encountered from my earlier research, when they recalled painful experiences, at times my responses — nods, ‘uh huh’, etc., which show attendance to the conversation (cf. Wetzel, 1988) — stopped, and I was unsure how to react. Positioning myself as a junior did not help here, since in Japanese communication style, consoling a senior is not easy. Brannen (1988) warns of the danger of bringing a lot of distress to the fore for the interviewee. While Oakley emphasises awareness of the interviewer ‘as a tool for making possible the articulated and recorded commentary of women’ (1981a: 48), Finch (1984) warns of the potential exploitative nature of the process of women interviewing women. She was ‘startled by the readiness with which women talked’ (p.72) to her in the interview. This led her to consider the structural position of women — consigned to the privatised and domestic sphere — which may be why they welcome the opportunity to talk to a sympathetic listener. It is this readiness which creates a ‘real exploitative potential’ and which ‘makes women especially vulnerable as subjects of research’ (p.81). The only course open to the researcher in these circumstances, according to Brannen, is ‘to listen and to endure and share in the person’s pain rather than to brush it aside too quickly with sympathetic words. To be silent yet sympathetic is hard and yet it may be all that the individual can offer’ (1988:559–60). To safeguard the position of women interviewees, firstly, research should be conducted





Invisible work

‘through a non-hierarchical relationship in which the researcher is prepared to invest some of her own identity’ (ibid.). Secondly, the researcher should have an emotional as well as an intellectual commitment to promoting their interest, and ensure that the information is not used against their collective interest. ‘How else can one justify having taken from them the very private information which many have given so readily?’ (p.86). This consideration naturally extends, in my study, to responsibility towards the fathers and children as well. In addition to distress, there is a danger that questioning might prompt soul searching and further anxiety, a possibility for which I felt very guilty. Brannen (1988) points to the stresses on the interviewer as well as the interviewee. As Marshall suggests, ‘Doing research can seriously damage your (researcher’s) health’ (cited by Maynard and Purvis, 1994). These anxieties stay with the researcher long after the interviews end. On the whole, despite some limitations, the methods used in this study, particularly in-depth interviews which tried to incorporate both mothers’ and fathers’ views, expanded the validity and reliability of the data in answering the initial questions. . Interviews with children

Plans and modifications Although childrens’ perspectives were not going to constitute the main body of data, they were conceived as an unmissable source. Incorporating them would allow me to approach data from the couple from a different perspective, offering greater access to the complexity. It would provide further insights into the interactional, dynamic nature of the family. I had the opportunity to interview older children (6 interviews with 8 children from five families, whose ages ranged from 11 to 19). Among those, there was one family (2 children, 2 interviews) who spoke only English. The rest were from Japanese or mixed language families (Table 3–3). In pilot interviews with children, however, I encountered serious difficulties. First, how the children perceived me strongly influenced the data generated. By visiting more than once and spending a lot of time talking to their parents, the children seemed to view me not as a neutral party, but as close to their parents. Second, as I was Japanese, like their mother, they viewed me as being particularly close to their mother. Third, and most critical, there were language difficulties. While my over-riding concern was for a conversation as rich and smooth as possible, for the mothers, my interview was a precious opportunity for their children to

 

Research methods

engage in sustained conversation in Japanese with another adult Japanese speaker. Some also encouraged their children to speak to each other in Japanese, while they normally spoke to each other in English. This limited the effectiveness of the interviewing. Table 3.3 Children’s interviews age and sex 1 2 3 4 5 6

19 f 18 m 16 m 18 m, 13 m 16 m 14 f, 11 f

(brothers seperate interviews)

average –15.6 yrs old

language used

interview duration

Japanese English English Japanese (some English) English (some Japanese) Japanese (some English)

1.5 hrs 1 hr 40 min. 30 min. 50 min. 40 min. 52 min.

The children seemed to have understood the questions well, but use of Japanese constrained their ability to respond and expand on ideas. I was constrained in speaking English by consideration of the wishes of the mothers, who had spent so much time for me, and arranged for me to meet their husband and children. In most cases, anyway, the children also tried to talk to me in Japanese, perhaps because that is the language they usually talk to Japanese people in. As they knew that my research was partly about language use in the family, too, they might have thought that I was judging, or at least doing research on, how much Japanese they could speak.

Validity of children’s interviews The language complication — the end result was a mixture of Japanese and English during the interview — no doubt affected how the children reacted to interview situation. If the interviews had been conducted solely in English, the children might have been able to express their experiences better. As it was, it was not safe to assume that their views were fully reflected in what was said. As a result, I judged only two (the first two of Table 3–3) of the six interviews as generating valid data. In spite of these constraints — the limited number of older children and the even more limited valid interview data — the attempt to incorporate childrens’ perspectives was worthwhile. It provided methodological insights in terms of strengths and limitations of incorporating children’s inputs in a holistic approach to family research. However, full inclusion of children’s perspectives, in terms of quantity and quality (depth) of data, remains a task for the future.





Invisible work

. Language issues Two languages — Japanese and English — were used in the survey, the interviews, and the subsequent data analysis. The overall priority was on accuracy and reliability of the data in terms of how well it would answer my research questions. Consequently, with the exception noted of some of the children, I used the language that the interviewee felt most confident and comfortable with. All the interviews with mothers were conducted in Japanese, and with the fathers in English, with their consent. Several fathers could speak some Japanese, but they all wished to be interviewed in English.

Mothers Interviewing the mothers in Japanese seemed beneficial to both parties. The Japanese language has distinct levels of politeness which cluster around sentence endings and some substitutes mainly for verbs and nouns. In interviewing mothers older than me, it was not difficult to position myself comfortably, with these polite expressions, as a junior seeking to learn from their experiences. Establishing a comfortable relationship with mothers younger than me at an early stage of the interview was a concern, as it is often awkward for an older person to use polite expressions to a younger person while at the same time creating a friendly atmosphere, except in special situations, as in shops. It is awkward for the listener, as well. Fortunately, although I was older than eight of the mothers, I had children as young as theirs. I was able to relate as a peer seeking to share experiences of bringing up young children. Except for the very beginning, I did not use polite expressions, in order to create the sense of being a peer. I am sure this contributed to the richness of the interviews with the younger mothers. The abundance of vague expressions in Japanese and the customary and sympathetic recognition of vague expressions helped the interviewees to develop their thoughts slowly, at their own pace, and at the same time helped me to ask and clarify their thoughts in a non-threatening way (requests for clarification were put vaguely but firmly). It has to be said that one interviewee who did not often use Japanese (or English — she had very little social contact in her daily life) found it difficult to articulate her ideas, but she still preferred to talk in Japanese. Fathers Before the interview started, I made it clear that there might be some language difficulties on my part and I would ask questions whenever necessary. The

 

Research methods

fathers all accepted this. During the interview, there were no major difficulties in understanding each other. The most important thing was, again, for the interviewees to be confident and comfortable in talking to me about their experiences. Most of them commented that they did not have any difficulty talking to me in English.

. Data analysis Owing to the complexity and diversity of the participants’ experiences, I needed a method of analysis which not only offered flexibility in allowing concepts to emerge, but a way of conceptualising those complexities and linking them in a useful way to answer my questions, so that appropriate generalisation could be made. Here the life history method’s relatively loose analysis process had to be strengthened by the more rigorous procedures of grounded theory analysis. This in turn was aided by the use of a theory-building computer programme — NUD*IST (non-numerical unstructured data indexing, searching and theorising; Richards and Richards, 1994) — which became a valuable tool in developing and organising concepts throughout the research. Procedures for looking at processes, and the conditional matrix which helps to move between levels of social contexts — action, interaction, group, individual, collective, organisational and institutional, community, national, and international settings (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 163) — provided effective analytic tools. Open coding (capturing emerging concepts) and axial coding (searching for organising concepts to categorise sub concepts) helped to reduce the data to a manageable level of conceptualisation. However, grounded theory analysis procedure was not possible beyond this point. Rigid adherence to the next level — selective coding (looking for a core category to integrate whole picture/concepts) — would have undermined the complexity of links between concepts, which resulted from use of the life history method. This might be possible in more closely specified research, such as the study of a certain illness in a hospital setting, but not here. The substantive theory that grounded theory analysis tries to achieve is conditional rather than universal, but even so, the nature of the research precluded commitment to constructing a core category. That does not mean to say, however, that the generalisations emerging from the analysis are not methodologically valid and robust.





Invisible work

. Process of analysis Simultaneous data generation and analysis, and the constant comparison method, are common features of most analysis by qualitative research methods (Tesch, 1990). Joint generation, coding, and analysis of data is the underlying operation. The generation of theory, coupled with the notion of theory as process, requires that all three operations be done together as much as possible. They should blur and intertwine continually, from the beginning of an investigation to its end. (Glaser and Strauss, 1967:43)

About five months after starting the interviews, I had finished interviewing seven families. At this stage I stopped and did two separate analyses, written in narrative form. One was for three younger families, and the other was of three older families. (These included the pilot interview families.) Although I wrote memos throughout the interview and analysis process, trying to write in narrative form forced me to sort out my ideas, and evaluate what I had learned so far. I had transcribed the interviews fully and then translated the Japanese interviews into English. This was necessary because the qualitative analysis software that I was using (NUD*IST version 4) did not accept the Japanese language. I did, however, return to the original (Japanese) when necessary to confirm that the original intention had been conveyed. Interviews were coded line-by-line and explored for any relevant concepts which emerged (open coding). At this initial stage of analysis, I concentrated on capturing the complexity, rather than rushing to comprehend the picture. As LaRossa and LaRossa noted: Look upon their family system as you would look at any social system — a complex of interrelated parts that is difficult to comprehend. Comprehension is our goal, and it will take all of our energies… just to get there. (1981:240)

Writing the analyses helped enormously in terms of focus and awareness in conducting subsequent interviews, as well as to initiate myself fully into the explicit analytical process. Influences of wider social contexts, in particular, became more concrete. From that point, data generation and in-depth (though informal) analysis continued simultaneously. I used selective transcription (Strauss and Corbin, 1990) after I had done line-by-line coding for 9 families and the major areas of inquiry had become clear. As the interviews proceeded, more and more concepts were created, but I started to search for organising concepts of those sub concepts (axial coding). Flexibility is important in this process; as Glaser and

 

Research methods

Strauss (1967) argue, the researcher is guided by initial concepts and guiding hypotheses, but shifts or discards them as the data are collected and analysed. In the search for themes and integration of concepts, through the ‘testing’ of many temporary hypotheses, the importance of life course emerged again, but this time from the empirical data, as an organising concept. This is strongly reflected in the organisation of Chapters 5–9. It was a challenge to attend to individuals’ experiences and views fully, and at the same time place them in levels of wider social contexts to explore the relationships between them. It was also demanding in that there were three ‘sociohistorical contexts’ that needed to be considered — the one the mother grew up in, the one the father grew up in, and the one the parents raised their children in. It was a process of repeated coming and going between individuals’ accounts and placing them in social contexts, similar to continually changing the focus of a camera from close to distant objects and back again. The conditional matrix, used in grounded theory analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), helped in this respect. This lasted all through eighteen months of interviews, and throughout the research process.

. Validity and generalisability , Reliability and validity Mason (1996) suggests three questions to ask in producing an explanation convincing both to the researcher and to others in qualitative research; ‘reliability and accuracy of method; validity of data; and generalisability of analysis’ (p.145). Reliability and accuracy of method means ‘how well matched the logic of the method to the kinds of research questions you are asking, and the kind of social explanation you are intending to develop’ (op. cit. p. 147). This point was discussed in methodology section above. The methods in this study are fully guided by the research questions. The importance for data generation of ‘how the participant perceived the interview’ is discussed in Glaser and Strauss (1967; also Voysey, 1975; and Anderson, 1993.) I have described how the interviewing was conducted and about the social interaction during the interviews (cf. Creswell, 1998). Although there were limitations in interviews with the children, I believe the main data generated — parents’ interviews — were valid and reliable enough to develop a social explanation as intended from my research questions. Analysis was assisted by procedures from grounded theory analysis.





Invisible work

Judgements about analysis should be suspended until the results have been presented in Chapters 5–9, which show how my interpretations and explanations are supported by evidence. . Generalisability of analysis This study does not seek to make empirical generalisations — generalisation from my sample to a wider population, based on representativeness of the sample. It aims for theoretical generalisation, an explanation of how and why things happened in specific settings, and identifying the key explanatory factors in the process, from which questions can be asked about ‘lessons for other settings’, or wider resonance : This form of generalisation is therefore based on the idea that you can use your detailed and holistic explanation of one setting, or set of processes, to frame relevant questions about others. (Mason, 1996:154)

The extent of generalisability is limited by the similarity or differences in key factors in the setting. To demonstrate the validity of theoretical generalisations to others: what is really required is a contextual grounding of generalisability claims in the strategies which produced them. In other words, you need to get used to spelling out in what you write or present to others not only what your claims are, but what are your grounds for making them, just as you might if you were making the case for the prosecution or defence in a court of law. (Mason, 1996:158–159, emphasis in original)

I have tried to be sensitive to this requirement in the following chapters.

Notes . In depth studies on marriage and the family often use this method, either implicitly or explicitly, to gain insight into individual thought: ‘Here we asked people about such experiences, inviting them to couch their responses within a life-history framework’ (Finch, 1993: 188). Cf. also Edgell (1980); LaRossa and LaRossa (1981); Askham (1984); Mansfield and Collard (1988); Wilson (1987). . In family studies, for example, Askham, 1980; Backet, 1982; Burgoyne and Clark, 1984; Cowan, et. al., 1985; Edgell, 1980; Finch and Mason, 1993; Voysey, 1975; Oakley, 1974; Woollett, 1995; LaRossa and LaRossa, 1981; Woollett et.al., 1994 Bhachu, 1993; Phoenix, 1990:in ethnicity/race studies, Channer, 1995; Tizard and Phoenix, 1993; Wilson., 1987.

 

Research methods

. Precise data on parents’ and children’s ages, education and occupational backgrounds is not presented because it would make many of the families identifiable, whereas anonymity was promised to those who participated. . This was the case in Dosanjh and Ghuman’s (1997) study of childrearing in Asian families in the UK. Irrespective of whether the former is a trusted member of the community, and the latter has been trained in interviewing, the data generated by in-depth interviews are bound to be different, and this should be recognised. . Most interviewees who did not know my length of stay in the UK asked at the beginning of the meeting, and about my marriage (which indicates prospects for length of stay) or, ‘How long are you going to stay? (I use my maiden name, which does not indicate long term residence). . Most interviewees asked who was taking care of my children during the interview, and whether they spoke Japanese or not. I said that they speak Japanese at the moment, but that they are still small, since I did not want to give the impression that I was a strong advocate of bilingualism, which might have strongly influenced the development of the interview, and discouraged contrary views from being expressed. . In her study of clergymen’s wives, Finch (1984) found herself in the same situation, and commented that their tone of voice often made her feel like a trainee clergyman’s wife. . One said ‘My children are growing up, and I’ll be fifty soon. I’m thankful that God has given me the opportunity to reflect on my life so far.’



 

Japanese-British families in the UK A survey

Introduction Images of the Japanese in the UK are dominated by those of short-term residents — especially businessmen sent by their companies, typically for three to five years, and their families — while relatively little is known about long-term residents, including those in intermarried families. This contrasts with the US, where quite a lot is known about Japanese Americans, and there have been a number of studies of Japanese-American intermarriage. The difference is not surprising, since there is history of Japanese emigration to the US, and a much larger immigrant population. The first task of this chapter is to look briefly at statistics of Japanese residents in the UK, both short term and long term, and attempt a very rough estimate of the extent of Japanese-British intermarriage. It then presents the findings of a survey on Japanese-British intermarried families in the UK. The aims of the survey were: 1. To obtain as far as possible an overview of Japanese-British intermarried families living in the UK; 2. To obtain an overview of language use in the families surveyed, with some information on decision making regarding language use; 3. To identify issues regarding language use and decisions which the respondents thought were important; 4. To locate a group of people who might become informants for the next stage of the study. These aims are consistent with the use of surveys in conjunction with in-depth interviews, as outlined in the ‘multiple method’ discussion of chapter 3. The structure of the chapter is as follows. Section 1 presents a brief



Invisible work

overview of the Japanese population resident in the UK, based on Japanese Embassy statistics (which are by no means comprehensive). Section 2 describes the exploratory Language Use and Family Survey, and section 3 discusses characteristics of the respondents. While these cannot be taken as representative of Japanese-British intermarried families in the UK, they do represent the beginnings of an attempt to present a more systematic picture of long-term intermarried residents and their families. Section 4 looks at patterns of language use in respondent families, and section 5 looks at relations with ‘Japan’. Section 6 examines responses to the final open question of the survey, which provide valuable information on language and childrearing concerns. Finally, section 7 considers the findings in the light of the original aims and questions, and the implications for the next stage of the study. .

Japanese residents in the UK

According to information supplied by the Japanese Embassy in London, there were 54,649 Japanese nationals living in the UK and registered with the embassy in October 1998 (Japan Information and Culture Centre mimeo; table 4–1). The figures may divided into two main groups — short term residents (called ‘visitors’), and long-term residents. Although there is no rigorous distinction between the two, the common understanding of both Japanese residents and researchers is that the former expect to return to Japan, normally after a stay of up to five years, and that they often take steps to ensure that their childrens’ Japanese ability is maintained so that they will re-integrate smoothly when they return. Long-term residents, on the other hand, particularly those married to non-Japanese, face a choice of whether to use English or Japanese with their children.1 The focus of this study is on long-term residents, who face adaptive choices of a more long-term nature than short-term residents. As table 4–1 shows, the vast majority of those registered with the Japanese Embassy are short term residents, the largest groups being private company staff and their families, and students/researchers and their families. The vast majority of private company staff are men, but more women than men come under the student/researcher category. However, more men than women in this category have families with them; these are often men sent by their company to obtain a higher degree from a British university.

 

Japanese-British families in the 

Table 4.1 Japanese nationals in the UK

Private company staff Journalists Self-employed Students/researchers Working for government Others

employed male female

dependent family male female

total

8,493 0,166 0,268 7,061 0,291 0,332

4,860 0,074 0,099 1,072 0,146 0,317

22,840 00,467 00,763 21,135 00,794 01,778

00,945 00,035 00,158 10,575 00,047 00,741

8,722 0,192 0,238 2,427 0,310 0,388

Subtotal (Visitors)

Resident in the UK

47,777 male

female

1,768

5,104

Total

06,872 54,649

Source: Japan Information and Culture Centre, Embassy of London, mimeo, 14 April, 1999

Only 12.6% of the total were classed as long-term residents (or simply ‘residents’). Among these, the overwhelming majority (74.3%) were women. Although some of these will be married to resident Japanese men, more are likely to be married to non-Japanese men. Thus the focus of this study corresponds with the largest group of long-term Japanese residents in the UK and their families. These figures are not complete. Registration with the embassy is not compulsory, so some residents are not recorded. Those who have given up their Japanese nationality are not recorded, either.2 Nonetheless, even if the figures were double those supplied by the embassy, the number of long-term (ethnically) Japanese residents in the UK would not be large, and the number of Japanese (mother) — non-Japanese (father) intermarried families would possibly be in the range of 5,000–10,000. Incomplete figures make it impossible to carry out a representative survey. In fact, given that the Japanese embassy does not supply individual names and addresses, for obvious reasons, constructing a sample of any substantial size is not easy. As we shall see in section 2, various sources were used for this study. Two additional observations should be made. It may be that some short term residents, particularly students/researchers, will eventually become longterm residents. Almost one in five mothers considered in section 3 received their highest education outside Japan, and in some cases this was prior to marriage, suggesting that this transition is not uncommon, but it is not possible to





Invisible work

infer this from the embassy data. Second, rough information is provided on place of residence. Over 95% of Japanese nationals in the UK live in England, and almost half (44.9%) are listed as living in London. Thus the population is highly concentrated, and no doubt further concentrated in certain areas of London. Unfortunately no separate figures are given for long-term residents, but they are likely to be more dispersed than short-term residents.

. The questionnaire . Guiding hypotheses The aims of the questionnaire are given in the Introduction to this chapter. Although the questionnaire was exploratory, some guiding hypotheses based on earlier research (Okita, 1996) were drawn up. The earlier research focused on interviews with mothers, and one of the objectives of the questionnaire was to learn more about the involvement of fathers in language use patterns in Japanese mother — British father intermarried families. This is reflected in hypothesis 5. 1. There are a variety of language use patterns in Japanese mother — British father intermarried families. 2. The initial ‘decision’ of language use is made mainly by mothers, as primary carers and speakers of the minority (Japanese) language, sometimes in consultation with their partner. 3. The decision is influenced by a variety of social and personal factors. 4. These include socio-historical factors, which influence attitudes towards childrearing and bilingualism; older mothers are more likely to have chosen English and younger mothers Japanese. 5. Husbands’ attitudes to bilingualism, the Japanese language and Japan are an important influence on the continued use of Japanese language in bilingual families. It should be stressed that these were guiding hypotheses, and the questionnaire was not intended to provide definitive answers to issues which are better understood through qualitative research. Nor did the questionnaire attempt to measure language use and proficiency other than in the broadest possible sense. To do so would have meant a much longer questionnaire, and the cutting of context questions. This was not one of the aims of the survey.

 

Japanese-British families in the 

. Pilot The questionnaire was constructed and pretested in April-May, 1997.3 Eight women were asked to fill it in. As there were no questions asked solely to male partners, only three men were asked (and only one responded). Four of the women were non-local, and were sent the questionnaire. They were interviewed after they filled it in. The four local residents were asked to think out loud as they filled it in to check whether or not their understanding matched the intention of the question (cognitive test: Czaja and Blair, 1996; Fowler, 1993). Two of the local residents were younger and two older. Particular care was taken to ensure that the older women understood the questionnaire in the way intended, and did not find it difficult to respond, given that Japanese language may not be a significant factor in their daily lives now. Care was also taken to ensure that respondents without partners would not feel excluded or offended. (One of the women was separated.) The results of the pilot tests were fed back into discussions with researchers familiar with questionnaire surveys in order to construct the final questionnaire. . Sample frame and distribution The questionnaire was distributed in June, 1997. The main sample consisted of an association of Japanese women married to non-Japanese men and living in the UK — Nami no kai (about 160 members: 153 questionnaires were sent out with the association’s monthly newsletter). Other respondents were sought from a) a play group in north-east London; b) an association of Japanese residents — Nisuikai; c) respondents to an advertisement in a Japanese weekly newspaper published in the UK; d) personal contacts; e) contacts of people who participated in the questionnaire. Details are given in table 4–2. For Nami no kai members, the requested return date was ten days from the date they were expected to receive the questionnaire. For others, the period was two to two and a half weeks. Care was taken to ensure that two weekends were included to facilitate the partner’s participation, and that the questionnaires arrived in the second half of the week (Sudman and Bradburn, 1982; Dillman, 1978) . . Response A total of 273 questionnaires were distributed, mainly by mail. The number of respondents was 139, a total return rate of 51% (table 4–3 below). The low response rate from the Association of Japanese Residents (Nisuikai) may have





Invisible work

Table 4.2 Sampling procedure — ‘Family and Language Use Questionnaire’ group

methods of recruitment

1. Nami no kai (Association of Japanese wives married to nonJapanese)

Consent was sought from the president of the association.

2. Japanese mothers and toddlers group (‘Mums in Ealing’) in North-west London and their acquaintances

a play-group to which I gave two talks on child development and language. Co-operation was sought at the end of the second talk, and 9 questionnaires were distributed plus 9 to acquaintances (though half were short term residents/visitors).

3. Association for Japanese Residents (Nisuikai)

At the monthly meeting of 11 June, I had a chance to explain my research and ask for copoeration. The representative offered the use of the association’s mailing list.

4. Other contacts including personal contacts, respondents to an advertisement in a Japanese paper and the Nami no-kai letter

– Personal contacts — some personal contacts in Cambridge, Leeds and London were included. – An advertisement seeking cooperation was advertised in Eikoku News Digest (a Japanese weekly newspaper in the UK) for five weeks (7 responses). Nami no kai monthly newsletter readers were asked to give names and addresses of friends who might co-operate (5 letters received; 14 possible respondents introduced.)

characteristics which possibly influenced the results

– network-seekers and Japan oriented people (also information seekers) Members might be highly motivated to This method is common in research socialise with other Japanese and might into intermarriage, cultural have stronger affiliation to Japan and adaptation, and identity issues. Japanese Language. – concentrated in the London area Many members live in the Greater London area, which has a Japanese community and support. Cf. as above first caracteristic, and especially second caracteristic. – concentration of mothers with young children (the group was for mothers and children from 0–2 years of age)

– network seekers, though probably not information seekers (no news letter) From observations at the meeting, members were ‘working’ people, many of them male. – mainly London-based Questionnaires were distributed by Most members were London-based mail to members who were married. – some Japanese resident couples Some were resident Japanese couples. (It was not clear who they were from the name list. There were none in category 1. and only 1 in category 2.) – diversity This group of respondents was most diverse in family structure, age of the mother and children, the area they lived, and socialisation with non-respondent Japanese people.

 

Japanese-British families in the 

been a result of the diversity of this association. Some members are single, some do not have children, some are newly arrived Japanese couples, and some are elderly. A large proportion may not have been interested in language at home and matters related to children. In addition, I was not known to this group. Families without children and widowed wives without children were excluded from the final analysis, as were Japanese — Japanese couples, and Japanese husband — British wife couples with children.4 That left a total of 92 Japanese wife — British husband couples with children. Of these, 66 were from the Nami no kai, and 26 were not. Both groups are analysed together here. Data input and quantitative analysis was carried out using SPSS. Table 4.3 Questionnaire distribution and returns category group 1 group 2 group 3 group 4

Assoc. for Japanese wives Japanese play group Assoc. for Japanese residents Other

Total

distributed

returned

return rate

153 016 073 031

090 011 020 018

59 % 69 % 27 % 58 %

273

139

51%

Table 4.4 Respondents for final analysis category

percentage

Assoc. for Japanese wives Other

72% 28%

. The respondents . Age The majority (57%) of female respondents were in their thirties (table 4–5); about half of these were in their early thirties and half in their late thirties. The main reason for this concentration was probably that most questionnaires were administered through organisations with high proportions of mothers at an earlier stage of bringing up children. (The average age at the birth of the first child was 31.5 years.) The next largest group was women in their forties (29%). Older women were probably less interested in the questionnaire, having older children who had moved beyond critical language decisions, and perhaps they were more reluctant to talk about such issues. The low proportion of women in





Invisible work

their twenties may reflect a general tendency of women to have children later, or perhaps a tendency to seek support from elsewhere. Table 4.5 Age of respondents age

female respondents (n=89)

male respondents (n=79)

–29 30–39 40–49 50–

08% 57% 29% 05%

01% 47% 38% 14%

Total

100

100

Note: ‘n’ refers to the number who wrote their age.

A third of partners (33%) were aged between 35–39, and a quarter were aged between 40–44. The average age of partners was 41 years old, 3.5 years older than the women, although there was a large variation, ranging from -10 to +26 years older. . Ethnicity ‘Ethnicity’ is a problematic concept for surveys. Questions on ethnicity here were asked in an open format. As expected, wives’ responses were very simple, whereas partners’ responses showed more variety. Almost all wives were Japanese nationals and had nothing to add to explain their and their parents’ ethnicities. On the other hand, 78% of the partners were British nationals and their ethnicity may be described as mainly British-Caucasian (70%), with some British-Afro-Carribeans and British-Asians. About 20% had a mother or father (or both) from outside the UK. . Education About half (53%) the female respondents had been to a specialist school or junior college beyond high school, and a further 28% had a university degree or postgraduate degree. Thus more than four fifths had received some form of tertiary education. Of the 14 (18%) who received their highest education abroad, 8 had a postgraduate degree; half from UK universities, and half from the US. Others may have gone to nursing colleges or English language schools. Partners’ educational levels were extremely high; 70% had a university degree, and 31% at the postgraduate level. A further 10% had been to another

 

Japanese-British families in the 

tertiary institution, while 20% had a high school education. It is difficult to compare educational levels, since different societies have different systems, but the womens’ education was concentrated at the specialist school/junior college/university level, while their partners’ education was concentrated more at the university/postgraduate level, although about the same proportion had not received education beyond the secondary level. . Work Almost a third (31%) of women were working. Of these, 36% were working full-time and 64% ‘part-time’ (which was undefined). Most women (88%) were either at home or working part time. Seventy percent of these had a child of four years or younger (pre-school). The younger the youngest child, the more likely the mothers were to be at home, or working on a part time basis. It is possible, of course, that mothers with young children and working full-time do not have time to join support organisations, and hence may have been missed by the survey. It should be noted, too, that the questionnaire asked about the current work situation, and not work history, occupational qualifications or work orientation. These were not included for reasons of space, and they cannot be inferred from the responses given. Most (95%) partners were working. The remainder were either retired or students. Of those working, 95% were working full time. There was probably a closer match here of work, occupational qualifications and work orientation. There was no relationship between the age of the youngest child and their work situation. As for the type of work, working wives were mainly engaged in Japanese language related work (teaching Japanese language or bilingual secretarial work), with very few engaged in other professional work. About three quarters of the husbands (74%) had managerial or professional jobs, and about 15% had associate professional or technical jobs, reflecting their high educational qualifications. . Cohabitation and family composition On average the couples had lived together for 9.2 years, with 39% in the range of 3 to 7 years. Almost two thirds (63%) had no experience of living in Japan with their current partner, while 27% had lived there for 1–4 years. The average years of residence in Britain for the women was 8.5 years, with a maximum of 26 years and a minimum of 0.





Invisible work

The average number of children was 1.6, with a maximum of 4. The average age of the first child was 4.8 years old, although 61% of the respondents had only one child, who was under 3 years.

. Language use and decision making Some initial words of caution about language use are necessary. Accurate assessments of bilingual language use and proficiency are notoriously difficult to obtain from surveys. Language use depends who is being spoken to, in what situation, when, and how often (cf. Baker, 1996, pp.18–33; Romaine, 1995, pp.11–22). Producing a lengthy questionnaire to specify these variables would have discouraged respondents both from returning the survey and from volunteering to participate further. It was also not necessary, since the aim of this study is not to assess language use and proficiency itself, but to understand the social context which influences, in a broad sense, which languages will be spoken. It is problematic giving just three options for language use. It depends on the respondents’ subjective judgement of what those three options mean, in addition to which situations they will base their response on. But what is useful here is that the responses suggest a variety of language use patterns, at least in terms of subjective judgements; second that in some cases the respondents felt their language use patterns had changed over time; and third, when combined with comments offered in the open questions, they suggested a complexity which could be explored in greater depth during the interviews. In these respects the questions on language use were very meaningful. Table 4.6 Languages used in the family

mother to father father to mother mother to child child to mother father to child child to father between siblings

(reported by mother) (reported by father) (reported by mother) (reported by mother) (reported by father) (reported by father) (reported by mother)

00Japanese

Japanese and English

English 00n=

0011 % 0005 0066 0040 0003 0004 0022

09 % 06 21 24 03 06 09

78 % 88 13 36 92 89 66

0090 0080 0091 0070 0081 0069 0032

Note: All figures in the first three columns are percentages. Some rows do not add up to 100 because of rounding, and because in one family the father’s language — Chinese — was used, except between the mother and children.

 

Japanese-British families in the 

. Current languages used in the family

Between partners The language used between the partners was predominantly English: 78% for women and 88% for partners. Japanese was used by 11% and 5% respectively, with the remainder using a mixture or another language. All but two of the women named Japanese as the language they were most confident in; 80% of their partners named English. Thus the couples were most likely to communicate with each other in the language the husband was most confident in, the dominant language in British society.5 Between mothers and children Although two thirds of mothers spoke Japanese to their child(ren), only 40% of the children spoke Japanese to their mother. Another 36% used English, and 24% used a mixture of both. (These figures exclude the 23% of families in which the mothers reported their children were not speaking yet). As hypothesised, the younger the mother, the more likely she was to use Japanese (figure 4–1 below). In addition, however, the younger the first child, the more likely the mother was to use Japanese (figure 4–2 below). This raises some interesting questions. The former might be linked to socio-historical factors (such as when the mother grew up, and the social environment during their early childrearing), but the latter to family life stage factors (such as changes which happen when the child goes to school). Significance tests suggest that the former may be more influential, but they might also interact in various ways.6 Varro (1988) has suggested a link between the number of children and language use. Where there are fewer children, there are more resources (financial, and time) to teach the minority language. Though not statistically significant (at the .05 level), there does appear to be such a tendency, although the fewer the children, the younger their age, so age of children might actually be the more important variable. Between fathers and children Most fathers (92%) spoke English to their child(ren), and most children (89%) spoke English to their father (cf. table 4–6). The higher the reported Japanese language ability of the fathers, however, the more likely they were to use Japanese, although they tended to use both Japanese and English. (Interestingly, the few cases of exclusive Japanese use did not appear to have a strong relationship with reported Japanese language ability.)





Invisible work 25 no. 20 Japanese Japanese and English

15

English 10 5 0 24–34

35–44

45–

mother’s age

Figure 4.1 Mothers’ age and present language to children no. 30 25 20 Japanese Japanese and English

15

English 10 5 0 0–4

5–9

10–14

15–

first child’s age

Figure 4.2 First child’s age and mother’s present language

Between siblings About half (55%) of the children had no siblings at the time of survey, and 6% had siblings who were still too young to speak any language. Among those with siblings who were able to speak, 66% spoke English to each other, 22% Japanese, and 9% used both languages (cf. table 4–6).

 

Japanese-British families in the 

. Change over time Three quarters (73%) of the mothers started out using mainly Japanese to their first child, while 11% used mainly English and 16% used both English and Japanese. In the fathers’ case, 77% started out using English, 4% Japanese, 15% both, and 3% another language (their native language). In some cases, the language(s) used between parents and children had reportedly changed over time, generally towards less use of Japanese, and greater use of English, or a mixture of English and Japanese. A quarter (26%) of the mothers had changed their language use. Ten percent had changed towards greater use of Japanese (English to mixed use or Japanese, or mixed use to Japanese), and 17% towards greater use of English (Japanese to mixed use or English, or mixed use to English). In most cases the change towards greater use of Japanese had occurred in families with young children under five, while the majority of the changes towards greater English use had occurred in the minority of families where the eldest child was five or more. The change towards greater use of Japanese in younger families was not anticipated, but it may well show initial indecision, followed by a decision to use Japanese. The change towards greater use of English may well reflect increasing dominance of English in some families when children approached and started school. Again, it is not clear whether the age of the child or the age of the mother was the most influential variable. Given the small numbers, particularly of older mothers and older children, and the subjectiveness of the notions of initial language ‘decision’ and change, no definitive answer will be attempted here, but it is likely that as the younger children in this survey get older, some will switch towards greater use of English. . The decision regarding initial language use About half of the mothers stated that the decision for initial language use to the (oldest) child was made by themselves, and about half reported that it was made by both themselves and their partner (table 4–7). Most (77%) discussed the issue, but 23% reported that they did not discuss it at all. Only 14% reported differences of opinion over the issue, and only 4% reported substantial differences of opinion. Some cautions with regards language decisions should be noted. Difficulties in recalling initial language decisions were expected from older mothers. As some of the respondents noted, too, it was not necessarily a clear process. Some said it emerged gradually, and one commented that they (wife and husband) knew that they agreed without talking about it.





Invisible work

Table 4.7 Who was influential in the decision of your language use? (asked to mothers, n=91) myself mainly me both

46 % 10 % 44 %

. Sources of influence Mothers and fathers appeared to be influenced by different sources of information, and to different degrees. The main source of influence reported by mothers was other families in a similar situation, especially Japanese mothers who raised or did not raise their children bilingually. For fathers, on the other hand, information was mainly gained from other linguistically diverse families such as English-French intermarried families. None specifically mentioned ‘Japanese-English’ intermarried families. Perhaps fathers had wider social contacts, for example through work, and less chance to meet other English husbands with Japanese wives, other than through their partner’s connection. In other words, the fathers might have had a wider variety of information sources and approaches to language use in the family, while mothers may have had more access to ‘insider views’ — down-to-earth, practical information from others taking care of children on a day-to-day basis. More mothers, however, had read books on bilingualism (32% compared with 11% of fathers), had talked about language use in the family with someone else (95% and 78%), and had talked about it intensively (47% and 16%). Eighty percent of fathers reported that they were not influenced by other people, while 54% of the mothers said they were influenced by others. This could indicate a lack of serious interest as much as anything else on the part of fathers. And either mothers had more contact with other mothers in a similar situation, or they were more open/ eager/ exposed to other people’s opinions or examples, perhaps because it was a more pressing issue for them. Other sources of influence such as health and educational professionals were reported by fewer respondents. Professionals were reported to have provided varied opinions, from approval to disapproval, over the use of Japanese at home. The nature of these opinions seemed random, rather than related to such factors as the period of childrearing.

 

Japanese-British families in the 

. Relations with ‘Japan’ . Contacts with other Japanese Most mothers and fathers considered it important or very important for their children to have contact with other Japanese people (34% and 48%, and 31% and 47% respectively), although a few (6% and 5%) thought it was not important. Many considered it important for themselves as well (85% of mothers and 29% of fathers). The relationship between the importance of contact with other Japanese people (either for children or mothers themselves) and the language used by mothers to their children was statistically significant. This could mean either that contact with other Japanese people becomes important to support a decision already made to use Japanese, or that greater contact with other Japanese people (and with things related to Japan) encourages use of Japanese. . Visits to Japan About 92% of the mothers had been to Japan in the last 2–3 years, mostly for their children (to experience life in Japan and/or to improve Japanese language) and their parents (to show their grandchildren to them, and take care of them). Three quarters (72%) said they wanted to go back more often, while 28% said they did not want to. Some older mothers stated that their parents had died, and they did not feel like going back. It is possible that such family relations, too, influence the use of Japanese and English.

. Open questions The final part of the questionnaire was an open question inviting the respondents to talk about language issues in the family in general. The responses provide some ‘flesh’ to put around the ‘bones’ given so far. The quantitative data showed that young mothers in their 30s and raising mostly 0–5 year old children were interested in the ‘language issue.’ They were the core respondents for this questionnaire. Most of them started using Japanese with their children, but the picture of long-term language use was still unclear. Far fewer mothers chose to speak English, but they shed an interesting light on the issues addressed by the questionnaire. This is apparent from the following analysis of the final question.





Invisible work

. ‘Naturally’ ‘Natural’ motherhood and ‘natural’ mother-child relations are powerful, normative concepts which are, nonetheless, socially constructed and change over time, according to Marshall (1991). Responses to the open question confirm that the concept is important for mothers, although there were various interpretations of what ‘being natural’ meant. First, while many mothers linked ‘being natural’ with their current language arrangements, this took on a variety of nuances. In some cases mothers spoke English with their children because they thought that teaching them Japanese would be contrived and unnatural. In time, they hoped that their children would ‘naturally’ (shizen-ni) come to be interested in Japanese, and that they would want to learn it by themselves. In other cases, mothers had seen other Japanese mothers speaking (limited) English with their children and felt this was unnatural. Speaking Japanese with their children was natural for them. There were various interpretations of ‘being natural’, but in all cases being natural was perceived as a good thing. This contrasts with requirement of explicit effort and ‘controlling’ the environment for successful family bilingualism noted by some researchers.7 Some mothers might choose not to raise their children bilingually, or switch to English when they realise that it does not come ‘naturally’, or else choose a path which is least ‘unnatural’ to them. Those who linked naturalness with children coming to be interested in Japanese of their own accord tended to be, not surprisingly, the older mothers who had chosen English to communicate with their children. Those who linked naturalness with themselves, and their own language use to children, tended to be younger mothers. This may reflect more than different ways of rationalising the decisions. Some older mothers who emphasised children learning Japanese by themselves did not consider language education as one of their childrearing tasks, or saw it as a major, unnatural effort. The younger mothers, having themselves grown up in Japan in a time in which special classes and studying were part of schooling, may have accepted the language tasks much more naturally. These responses are only suggestive, but raise interesting questions for further exploration in the interviews. . Language choice for whom? Second, the issue of ‘for whom’ the language choice was made was discussed by some respondents. Some chose the language ‘for myself ’ and others ‘for the children’. (‘For grandparents’ might have been a factor as well, since few of the

 

Japanese-British families in the 

grandparents’ generation would be able to speak English, but the earlier question on links with Japan may have prevented this response from appearing in the final open question.) For children, it would help them grow up as an ‘international child.’ For the mothers, the picture was more complex. For some, good communication with their children was very important (and either they judged that their English language ability for childrearing was limited, or they preferred the Japanese medium of communication), or simply ‘it (Japanese) suits me best.’ Others gave a more negative reasons, such as being looked down on by others in the UK because of their limited English language ability, and not wanting their children to look down on them also, so they chose Japanese. A similar picture could not be gained for the English speakers. One respondent however, reported that she chose English — despite her husband wanting her to use Japanese — because she herself liked speaking it. . Culture Third, ‘culture’ was cited by a small number of respondents. Of these, some — older mothers — mentioned it to explain their choice of not using Japanese for bringing up their children. This was also the case for some of the informants in my 1996 study. They wanted to distance themselves from ‘Japanese culture’ and ‘Japanese childrearing’, saw Japanese language as being closely connected with these, and chose English. Other — mostly younger — mothers linked language and culture in a more positive way, and expressed a desire to teach their children both together. A small number of partners, too, hoped their children would come to appreciate Japanese culture through the language. . Family dynamics Some of the respondents used the final question to explain why they used a mixture of English and Japanese at home. Some would have preferred to use Japanese, but were concerned about the effect this might have on family dynamics, as their husband did not speak Japanese. In some cases they saw other mothers dedicating themselves to Japanese language use in families which were experiencing marital problems, and made a connection between the two. . School Some women worried about whether speaking Japanese would impede their childrens’ English development at school, or conversely, whether their children





Invisible work

would lose their Japanese once they started school. Starting school does not simply mark a transition, with increased competition for time allocation; it marks a new developmental stage in which children begin to learn more abstract concepts, and hence their linguistic needs grow. The Japanese-speaking mother must be more determined in this period, and the potential for an upset in family dynamics grows. In his response, a sympathetic father who started out speaking Japanese to his son, wrote how he eventually gave up because his son’s developmental needs were more than he could provide for in Japanese. Most of the families surveyed by this questionnaire still had to negotiate this period, hence their situations and their perceptions might change. . Partners The response rate of the partners to the final open question was much lower than the women (35% compared with 84%), and the responses were briefer, but they were very informative. Some men expressed mixed feelings about trying to raise their children bilingually; a trade-off between the advantages of bilingualism versus the disadvantages, such as worries about slower progress at school. Several were concerned about how many other subjects, skills and languages children were expected to learn at school, suggesting that for them, Japanese could be likened to a school subject. A number of partners, however, indicated support for bilingualism in their family. (They were probably more likely to write responses than those who did not favour it.) There were two groups; those who saw bilingualism as being intellectually or occupationally beneficial, and those who saw it as their wife’s project, and they wanted their wife to succeed. ‘I’m studying Japanese, too. I’ve lived abroad and I know how it is for my wife’, wrote one.



Conclusions, and implications for the interviews

. Backgrounds It cannot be claimed that the respondents to this survey were representative of Japanese mother–British father intermarried couples in the UK. Possible sources of bias were discussed in Section 2. Some generalisations may be made about the respondents, however. The majority of mothers were in their thirties, while their partners were in their late thirties or early forties. Both the mothers and especially their partners were highly educated. Working mothers were engaged mainly in

 

Japanese-British families in the 

Japanese language-related work, although this did not necessarily reflect their occupational backgrounds. Their partners generally had either managerial or professional jobs. In brief, these couples were quite different from the colonial/war bride couples described in Chapter 2. Although ‘Western — non Western’ in terms of ethnicity, in terms of language concerns at least, there is some resonance with Cottrell’s third category of ‘educated Western — Western couples’, especially Varro’s American mothers — French fathers. This should be kept in mind as we move on to the interviews of 28 families, mostly selected from questionnaire respondents. . Hypotheses considered The findings of the survey offer clear support to the first three hypotheses (there are a variety of language use patterns; the initial ‘decision’ of language use is made mainly by mothers, sometimes in consultation with their partners; the decision is influenced by a variety of social and personal factors). There is a variety of language use patterns in Japanese mother — British father intermarried families in the UK — at least those in this sample — and these are complex in that they may change in different ways over time. Language was an important issue for the mothers, and to a large extent it was their decision — or a joint decision — which decided it. Bilingualism in these families was basically the mothers’ work or project. Some chose to speak Japanese with their children, and some English, or a mixture. The reasons behind this were complex, but reflected the influence of other intermarried mothers, personal language preferences and job aspirations, childrearing views, husband-wife relations, and to some extent relations with Japan. As for the fourth hypothesis (socio-historical factors influence the decision: older mothers are more likely to have chosen English and younger mothers Japanese), there was a relationship between age and both initial language decision and present language use. Older mothers were more likely to have chosen to speak English with their children than younger mothers and younger mothers were more likely to have chosen Japanese. These differences existed for present language use as well. The relation could reflect: 1) the period of early socialization of the mothers; 2) the social environment in which they bore and raised their children; and 3) for present language use, the age of the children. The first two cannot be disentangled from this survey, while the third appears to be less significant than mothers’ ages, but noteworthy nonetheless, for it may reflect the practicalities of bilingual-child rearing in intermarried families.





Invisible work

The fifth hypothesis concerns the role of husbands. The main evidence here came from the open-ended questions. These suggest, as in the hypothesis, that the attitude of husbands towards bilingualism, towards the Japanese language and to some extent Japan, influenced their involvement. Some husbands did not support the bilingual choice. Of those who did, some supported it because they thought bilingualism was a good thing, and some because they wanted to support their wife (or both). This will be explored in greater depth in subsequent chapters. . Proceeding with the interviews One aim of the survey was to locate a group of informants for the interviews, and here the criteria for selection becomes important. In the original conception, as suggested by hypothesis 4, the age of the mother was a critical consideration. Selecting both older and younger mothers would allow socio-historical influences to be highlighted. However, the analysis also suggests that the age of the (first) child is an important consideration, though not as decisive, in explaining differences in language decisions and use. The analysis also suggests that partners are involved, less perhaps in the initial decision making, but significantly at certain periods, such as when the child starts school. If we want to observe family dynamics, and the ongoing process of language use, it may make more sense to focus on the age of the (eldest) child as a key selection criterion. There are advantages and disadvantages in doing this. On the one hand, it may result in less prominence being given to socio-historical influences — the social context in which the mothers were raised, or in which they raised their children initially. On the other hand, it is likely to result in a clearer understanding of life-stage aspects of the family, particularly the impact of schooling, of language use and family dynamics, including the involvement of the father. Indeed, schooling and home language use in relation to other school-oriented activities was an issue (actually a cluster of issues) raised by both mothers and fathers in this survey. Even parents with pre-school children considered this an important issue. As a result of the survey, therefore, I decided to focus on the eldest child’s age in selecting families for interview. It is a difference in emphasis rather than a fundamental difference, since often younger children will have younger parents, and older children older parents. Second, most respondents were parents with younger children. Given the complexity of the issues being examined, it might have been prudent to limit the interviewees to families with younger children. On the other hand, this

 

Japanese-British families in the 

would risk losing rich insights which may be gained from interviewing families with older children. The study is, after all, an exploratory study, and aims to highlight the various factors which come into play as seen through the prism of language use, which may change over time, and which have been largely neglected to date. It was worth the challenge. Seventy five respondents to the survey indicated a willingness to co-operate further in the study. The number was reduced to thirty six based on two main considerations. One was the mother’s length of residence in the UK — a minimum of five years was set — and the second was the potential for both parents’ inputs. As described in Chapter 3, pilot interviews were carried out with two families with older children and two families with younger children, and then the families were selected in descending order of age, in order to ensure that enough families with older children were interviewed. The following chapters analyse the interviews with twenty eight families — although in five cases the partner was not interviewed — exploring childrearing and language use issues in greater depth.

Notes . In her study of the Japanese speech community in the UK, Namie says: ‘Among the Japanese in Britain, attitudes to language maintenance depend on whether the families are temporary residents or permanent settlers. For children who will ultimately return to Japan, it is important not only to maintain the Japanese language, but also to keep up with Japanese standards for their age groups. For permanent settlers, mother tongue maintenance is a matter of individual preference’ (1991: 182). Namie focuses on short term residents, and this must be born in mind when comparing such studies with other speech groups in the UK. . Dual nationality for Japanese adults is not allowed. . It consisted of: a covering letter (one A4 page); a Japanese questionnaire to the Japanese partner (mainly female: the word ‘partner’ was used throughout considering the potential diversity in family composition: four A4 pages); an English questionnaire to the nonJapanese partner (mainly male: two A4 pages); an English translation of the Japanese partner’s questionnaire for the non-Japanese partner’s reference (see Appendix 2); a response form for indicating a willingness to collaborate further; a self-addressed business reply envelope for the returns. . The majority of those excluded were couples without children — 24 of the Nami no kai respondents were in this category — although there were seven Japanese — Japanese couples as well. . The question of confidence was problematic in two ways. First, ‘confident’ is a perception which varies from person to person, and according to the situation (eg daily conversation





Invisible work

versus for work). Second, the question was asked in Japanese for the women and in English for the men. The Japanese word lacks a plural form, and ‘most’ normally implies a single answer, whereas ‘languages’ in English clearly allows for more than one. Only 2% of wives gave more than one answer — Japanese and English — versus 16% of husbands. . Non parametric tests (Kruskal Wallis) produce significance at the .01 level for mother’s age and .05 level for first child’s age, although a median test produces significance at the .01 level for the mother’s age but only at the .1 level for first child’s age. . In his advice to parents who are raising children to become bilinguals Baker (1995: 14) suggests: ‘language engineering’ and ‘careful decisions about family language planning need making’,‘ a well thought out plan of action’ with ‘constant discussion and monitoring’, as well as ‘a strategy’ to ensure quantity and quality of language exposure.

 

Initial language decision

Introduction The following five chapters present the findings from the in-depth interviews. In this study language use provides a focus or prism for examining childrearing issues in intermarried families. Chapters 5 and 6 look specifically at language use — at the initial decisions (and non decisions) which were made around the birth of the first child, and subsequent developments respectively — while Chapters 7 to 9 place this in context by looking at childrearing issues, education, family relationships, identity and ethnicity. The division between Chapters 5 and 6 is somewhat arbitrary, since there were a number of changes in use soon after the first child’s birth, so the initial decision and use did not hold for long in some cases, or an initial non-decision gave way to a more conscious choice. The main reason for dividing the chapters in this way is that the ‘snapshot’ view in Chapter 5 allows us to look in some detail at how the mothers and fathers thought about language use in the early period, and what kind of factors influenced their thinking, which in itself is complex, without further complications of subsequent changes. Understanding the process of the decision making is important. In addition, introducing the thoughts of mothers and fathers, and initial influences, sets the scene for the following chapters. With this in mind, the chapter is divided into sections on the mothers, fathers, micro context and macro context. It should be remembered, however, that the following chapter is a necessary complement to this chapter. Initial language decisions may be categorised according to those who made clear, conscious decisions at the beginning, and those who did not, and of the former, those who chose to use Japanese at home and those who chose to use English. It should also be remembered that for some families — those with younger children — the decision (or non-decision) was made recently, whereas for others — those with older children — it was made many years ago, which could well have affected the data generation process. Let us start by looking at



Invisible work

the perspectives of mothers who, according to my earlier research (Okita, 1996), and as suggested by the survey, had the greatest input at this stage. Children themselves were not interactive participants at the beginning. I should note that talking about the initial decision was not an easy matter for many mothers. It was only gradually that the complexity of the decisionmaking process emerged. It was a story of mothers reflecting on their experiences and views, jointly created (with me) at the time of the interview. The following example is illustrative: One woman who was working said ‘because the children will live here, I speak only English.’ But I cannot become English, I cannot throw away my Japanese part. And I want them to speak with their grandma and grandpa, don’t I? (Mrs Andrews)1

On the surface, it might appear that Aki Andrews was talking about her identity and ethnicity. Later it became clear that she was not talking about a strong sense of being Japanese, or a reluctance to adapt to the UK. Her comments reflected traumatic experiences of early childrearing (described in Chapter 7), and the fact that she was reliant on Japan during that difficult time. The distinction is important for avoiding superficial stereotyping, but can only be gained through sensitive research methods.

.

Mothers

Decisions about which language(s) to use in intermarried families are important to parents whichever language(s) is (are) chosen. Harding and Riley suggest: The decision is an important one, since, once taken, it is almost impossible to reverse. It will probably be with you, quite literally, for the rest of your lives. (1986:74)

As we shall see, there was in fact more flexibility in the families studied here. Of the twenty eight mothers, seventeen started to use a particular language from the beginning. Five said they chose English (although two switched to Japanese shortly after), and twelve chose Japanese, although strictly speaking, four of these reported that they started to speak Japanese ‘naturally.’ The remaining eleven said they used both English and Japanese, reflecting either a ‘non decision’, or a postponement of the decision to a later period. Let us look at these groups one by one.

 

Initial language decision

. Those who spoke Japanese Two key concepts which emerged as especially relevant for choosing Japanese from the beginning were mothers’ desire to feel satisfied in communicating to the child — communicative satisfaction — and the relationship with their parents in Japan — old hearth ties. These families seemed to have made their language decision in a very practical way, and in a way related to mothers’ needs. It was not, it seemed, related to their ability — or inability — to speak English; some mothers with a postgraduate degree from the UK or US chose to speak Japanese. Communicative Satisfaction ‘I want to talk with my children in Japanese. If I don’t, I think stress will build up. After all, I will know that I’m not communicating everything I want to say to them.’ (Mrs Andrews) ‘It’s for my benefit. To get through to them. There are things you can’t say to them in English, aren’t there.’ (Mrs Corby)

Communicative satisfaction refers to the desire of the mother to use the language she feels most comfortable with in speaking with her child, and a desire to feel that she is saying exactly what she wants to, including the nuances. Most mothers who chose Japanese felt it was not easy to obtain this satisfaction when communicating in a second language. In early childrearing, verbal communication is, in a sense, ‘one way.’ The need for a mother to feel satisfied in communicating with the child seemed to be related to whether she felt she could, and wanted to, express herself fully when she spoke to the child. Aki Andrews and Sachiko Sorensen talked about Japanese as the only language suitable (for them) for the demands of childrearing work. They and other mothers made it clear that communicating with children was different from communicating with husbands, or in situations outside the house. Two mothers (Sumie Sharpe, Junko Jeffries) who switched from English to Japanese early on did so partly for this reason: And after all, I felt unnatural speaking to my child in English. When I speak Japanese, I feel relaxed. The real me comes out. In English I feel I use other peoples’ words. [TO: Even after using English at University and work?] Especially to children. It’s OK when I speak to other people, but with children it feels empty. I want my children to listen to what I really feel and think, not empty words. (Mrs Jeffries)





Invisible work

Old Hearth Ties Relationships with parents and family in Japan turned out to be a strong motivating factor, especially for younger mothers, in the decision to use and continue using Japanese (and also to use English, as we shall see below). After all, I want them to be able to talk with my mother and sister and relatives in Japanese… (Mrs Corby) But I want them to be able to talk with their grandma and grandad in Japan, don’t I. (Mrs Andrews)

The relationship with parents and family in Japan had several different properties — strength, quality and practicality — and the combination of these was strongly related to the language decision and subsequent use.3 Strength refers to how strongly the mother felt about the links with her family. Quality refers to how she felt affectively about the relationship. Practicality refers to financial resources to go back to Japan, flexibility to fit in trips, and so on. Table 5.1 Properties of ‘old hearth ties’ which influenced language decisions strength quality practicality

3

weak — — — strong bad — — — good unfavourable — — — favourable

Relationships which were not significant before the arrival of the first child became stronger (Mrs Andrews, Mrs Emerson, Mrs Moss), especially when support for childrearing in the UK was considered insufficient (Mrs Andrews). Support is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7, but in part it refers to where support was available from — husband, family in the UK, family in Japan, social networks). New positive relationships with their own parents developed, reinforcing the desire to raise children bilingually. If the quality of the relationship with the family in Japan was not good, however, the mothers tended to distance themselves from Japan, even if the other two dimensions were favourable. This weakened their determination to raise their children in Japanese, especially when they encountered difficulties later on (e.g. Etsuko Ericson, who started out speaking both English and Japanese, but soon stopped using Japanese). We shall see this when we discuss the English speakers below. Most families were able to go back to Japan periodically, although it became somewhat more difficult after the children started school. Practicality probably had an influence on strength, but as noted, even where there were favourable practical circumstances, if the quality of the relationship with the

 

Initial language decision

family in Japan was not good, visits were not made, and incentives to use Japanese were weakened. In these circumstances, seemingly minor difficulties in practical arrangements appeared to be perceived as a reason by the mothers not to make trips (e.g. Inwoods).

Other / additional reasons Those who decisively chose Japanese mentioned the above two reasons only. Those who did not make clear decisions but started speaking Japanese ‘naturally’ did not emphasise communicative satisfaction, and tended to talk about other reasons, the two main ones being observing other families, and fear of isolation at home. Observing other families bringing or not bringing children up bilingually became either a source of ideas and encouragement for Japanese use, or in some cases a source of discouragement. Overall, the mothers’ social network in terms of support for childrearing was limited before the first child was born. Whether from word of mouth, reading, or observing families with very young children — before they faced some of the difficulties described in the following chapters — they tended to see the positive aspects of family bilingualism; young children responding to two languages, speaking two languages, and switching freely between them. And when they saw other Japanese mothers speaking English to their children, they often felt it was unnatural and awkward. Second, some mothers linked ethnicity/identity and language decisions. This was not so much a matter of strong ties to ‘Japan’, but because of the fear of ‘isolation’ at home, in the UK. ‘I came to the UK late (at age 25) and I can’t change my identity — being Japanese. So if I don’t transmit it I get isolated.’ (Mrs Nichols)

Using Japanese, she reasoned, would enable her child to understand ‘Japan’, and hence her. If her child did not learn Japanese, she would become isolated. This was an important factor in her continuing to use Japanese. There is a sense of this in Aki Andrews’ view as well. Aki Andrews spoke limited English: ‘I want to speak Japanese with my children. Because I’m Japanese, I want to speak Japanese. Anyway, I can express myself better in Japanese.’ (Mrs Andrews)

. Those who spoke English4 In spite of high rate of current English use among mothers with their children, few deliberately chose English from the outset. Those who did, however,





Invisible work

expressed clear reasons, which differed considerably from each other. They might have felt a need to have clear reasons, in order to prepare themselves for ‘why not speak Japanese?’ questions and attitudes. Here, interestingly, ethnicity was a specific factor.

Avoiding ‘Japan’ Some of these mothers wanted to avoid ‘Japan’ and/or orient themselves more firmly towards British people and ways. The main nuances were: getting away from family in Japan, dislike of the ‘Japanese way’ of relating to children, responding to support from British people, and a personal liking of English (language). Let us look at these in turn. Ikuko Inwood’s experience of childhood was of a domineering mother, who supported the whole family (four children) because of her husband’s long term illness. She understood how her mother had a hard time bringing up four children, but her childhood experience was so negative that she couldn’t come to terms with it. Whenever she went back to Japan she found herself back in the same dominating — dominated relationships with her mother and three older sisters. Fumi Findlay also pointed to negative experiences in her family in Japan, and contrasted them with the warmth she saw in her husband’s family: ‘Well, it was always work, work, work. We hardly had dinner together, just on New Year’s Day…. Family ties… that’s Frank’s [husband’s] family. I didn’t have it… My father did what he wanted to do and my mother suffered from it.’ (Fumi Findlay, whose parents ran a small family business)

This was the most significant reason for choosing English, and not Japanese. These mothers did not want to keep old hearth ties. They just wanted to get on with their life in English. They did not talk about a need to communicate with their child in their own language. Either they did not have that need, or they had another need — to put their life in Japan behind them, and establish a new life in the UK. This factor also came into play when non-decision making mothers faced difficulties in continuing to use Japanese. Mothers who did not emphasise maintenance of relationships with the family in Japan tended to drop Japanese more easily than those who strongly wanted to keep their old hearth ties. The second factor was a dislike of the ‘Japanese way’ of relating to children, which was closely linked with the mothers’ personal experiences, such as those just noted. When I speak in Japanese, I become like a Japanese mother and I don’t like it. (Mrs Inwood. Cf. Chapter 9)

 

Initial language decision

For mothers who wanted to distance themselves from the experiences of their own upbringing, using Japanese was a backward step. They felt that language influenced the way they interacted with their child, and symbolised the constraints they had experienced. Such mothers chose English to liberate themselves from ‘Japan,‘ or more specifically, the relationships with their immediate family in Japan. Ikuko Inwood had a difficult childhood because of her mother’s strict attitude. She strongly wanted to avoid raising her children in the ‘Japanese way’ that her mother represented. She felt that when she was back in Japan and using Japanese she started adopting the behaviour patterns of the ‘Japanese way’, and so chose not to speak it: ‘You can’t separate language and behaviour, I guess.’ (Mrs Inwood)

Third, there were reasons for the mothers to positively orient themselves to British social networks, and using Japanese would have impeded this orientation. The only people who helped Wakako Waring prepare for unexpected single motherhood in the UK were a local group of Christians. No-one who helped her spoke Japanese, and trying to speak Japanese would have isolated mother and child from those who cared for them. This was an extreme situation, but it illustrates the relationship between language use and support, discussed in Chapter 7. Finally, Fumi Findlay liked English, which was why she came to the UK. She did not see any reason for her to give up a part — a big part — of her English speaking environment. She wanted to use English. She was not afraid of becoming more Japanese when she used Japanese, but since she didn’t have the kind of family that she wanted to visit with her children in Japan, and since she liked English and the UK, she saw no compelling reason to teach Japanese to her children. Because I like English — that’s why I came here.… I want them to live as British. (Mrs Findlay)

These factors came into play subsequently for ‘non-decision makers.’ Those who did not have a ‘close’, ‘desirable’ relationship with the family in Japan and/or those who favoured English as a language tended to drop Japanese earlier than other non-decision makers who had families they wanted to keep close relations with.

Avoiding ‘language work’ There was another set of factors in mothers’ decisions not to use Japanese with their children, related to their views of their childrearing responsibilities, and





Invisible work

the effort and costs that using Japanese would entail. The factors come together in the views ‘they can learn later’ and ‘it’s not right to force Japanese’. Some mothers suggested that their children could learn Japanese when they got older. Being exposed to Japanese from a young age was not the only way to learn it.5 Learning later meant after establishing their first language, English, and when they wanted to learn by themselves. This view derived from the mothers’ own experiences of learning English as a second language,6 or in the case of Fumi Findlay, from observing non-Japanese employees speaking fluent Japanese at the company she was working in: … there are people who speak Japanese very fluently. They were born and brought up in this country, became interested in Japanese and studied it, and made their own way. (Mrs Findlay)

Learning Japanese later would also avoid any difficulties in English language development, they reasoned (as did non-decision makers who stopped using Japanese before their children started school). Some mothers thought that ‘forcing’ Japanese onto their child would be detrimental. Ikuko Inwood lived near the Japanese Saturday School in London before the birth of her first child, and felt she did not want her child to become like the children she saw going there, pressured with so much homework.7 In fact, this experience intensified her dislike of the ‘Japanese way’ and Japanese people. It might be debated whether these views actually caused the mothers to choose English, or whether the mothers, having chosen English, were more likely to develop these views. What matters here is that they expressed such views when asked about language decisions. It is also noteworthy that although they had clear reasons for choosing to speak English, these mothers were rather reserved when talking about language decisions, as if they wanted to keep their distance from ‘Japanese teaching work.’ Fumi Findlay’s parents’ ‘hands off ’ approach to childrearing made her reluctant to think of spending a lot of time and energy for her children. Ikuko Inwood associated ‘teaching Japanese to the children’ with her domineering mother’s childrearing, which she wanted to forget. Harumi Hope, a non-decision maker who used a mixture of English and Japanese, commented critically on friends who insisted that their children talk to them in Japanese. She felt that was excessive. . The non-decision makers8 ‘Gradually I felt I wanted my children to learn Japanese…. After all, my husband encouraged it very much.’ (Mrs Hope)

 

Initial language decision

Most mothers who did not make a clear decision were either not aware that they were in a situation to make a decision, or did not think it was necessary to do so. Most used both Japanese and English, in varying proportions. The following factors were relevant for ‘non-decision makers’.

General lack of information on language issues First, they tended not to have much information on bilingualism and bilingual childrearing. There were few such books when the older mothers had their first child.9 Even when such books started to become available from the mid 1980s, few of the mothers had access to them.10 The fact that the books have mostly been in their second language presents an extra barrier. Older non-decision making mothers talked about a lack of information which made them unaware of the issue of language at the beginning. Social networks are important sources of information, or conversely, without a social network which includes families in analogous situations, there is a lack of information: If there were more information, you could think based on it, and apply it to your family. But there was no information. (Mrs Kirkland)

Without that information, Kimi Kirkland continued, she could not even see where to start thinking about it. In general, however, social knowledge of bilingualism has been increasing, and for mothers faced with the decision in recent years, it encourages them to use Japanese, even when other factors are unfavourable.

Initial chaos of childrearing Dealing with first-time childrearing which demands continuous adjustments is difficult enough, especially if there are extra difficulties such as a lack of support or a baby with colic. In such a situation it is not easy to think clearly about language decisions and their implications. It was all I could do to survive. There was no support around me, just telephone calls to Japan. (Mrs Sharpe) Looking back, I didn’t know what was going on. (Mrs Jeffries)

These two mothers in fact started off speaking English, but shortly afterwards switched to Japanese. Some of the other non-decision making mothers faced similar, if less intense, pressures.





Invisible work

Dealing with negative attitudes towards bilingualism. Although attitudes towards bilingualism have changed in the past ten to fifteen years, some mothers still encounter negative attitudes, and when these are from someone significant to them (extended family, health visitor, someone in daily contact to the mother), it makes it difficult to decide to use only Japanese to the child. Kimi Kirkland’s mother-in-law had German parents whose English was poor. From her own experience, she worried about her grandchild not being strong enough in English and suffering at school as a result. Kana Kerr was strongly advised not to speak Japanese by her GP (in 1992), who said he had seen many cases of problems with Indian families in the vicinity: I said I wanted to bring her up in Japanese, and Kevin would use English. He said if parents use different languages there will be a delay in their childrens’ language development, so I shouldn’t do it…. I thought that can’t be the case, but he said he’d seen many cases like it. (Mrs Kerr)11

Such mothers vacillated between both languages, and later some (Masayo Moss and Kimi Kirkland) felt they had to justify their use of Japanese by engaging in ‘proving work’ (proving what they were doing was good and legitimate for the child’s development; discussed in Chapters 6 and 7). The combination of these three factors contributed to non-decision making. Information — or the lack of it — was particularly influential, and was closely related to the social network of the mothers at the onset of childrearing, as well as the historical time in which they had the first child. Table 5.2 Factors particularly relevant for non-decision makers information on language use

none — — — sufficient

difficulty in initial childrearing experience

difficult — — — not difficult

extended family’s attitude to second language use (perceived by the mother)

negative — — — positive



Fathers

. ‘For the children’ While the explanations of language decisions given by the mothers were conceived around their own needs, their relations with their children, and with significant others, all the fathers based their views, at least in part, on their ‘chil-

 

Initial language decision

drens’ interest’, regardless of which language use they supported. For most this meant approval of childhood bilingualism and support of the mother’s use of Japanese at home, regardless of the time period the decision was made — the socio-historical context. (This may, of course, represent a bias in that fathers who agreed to participate in the study might be those with favourable attitudes to bilingualism.) I definitely wanted Megan to be able to speak both languages and always pressed my wife to speak Japanese when I’m at work and she is at home with Megan all the time. They (children) have a great chance to be perfectly bilingual. (Mr Farrell)

First, the fathers thought it was important for the children to be able to communicate with family in Japan. They saw it as a genuine benefit for the children, without which (as in the Findlays’ case) it would be difficult to maintain the relationship. Children ‘forget that side of the family very quickly’ (Frank Findlay). That was exactly what his wife wanted, but it was disappointing for him. Fathers wished to maintain the childrens’ Japanese side — social relationships — ‘because they are half-Japanese’. Second, they saw it as beneficial for their child’s future occupation. I’m surrounded here (at the company) by people who can speak five or six languages… The door is open for you if you speak another language fluently. (Mr Corby, who worked in a company operating internationally) Even if the children are not so bright, if they can speak Japanese, they have a better prospect of having a better job. (Mr Sharpe)

While a number of fathers mentioned better job prospects if the children were bilingual, none of the mothers mentioned this. This might be because the fathers were more oriented towards paid employment, whereas the mothers were more pessimistic because their experience of language-related work was of casual, insecure teaching, guiding or interpreting work — women’s work. Indeed, some mothers rejected the notion of occupational advantage: I don’t want my children to get a job related to Japan. (Mrs Findlay)

Third, some fathers thought there were general cultural benefits in their children being bilingual. They talked about the world getting smaller and the value of having two cultures and languages. I think the main reasons are the children are half Japanese and half English, and both are equally important. I think two languages open up many possibilities in their life, later on…. My children can claim to be children of the world.





Invisible work

They embrace two very different cultures in a very strong way. (Mr Emerson) Having two cultures is a gift. (Mr Kirkland)

. Underlying assumptions Certain assumptions lay behind the fathers’ views, in particular the idea that children could become bilingual ‘naturally.’ I thought the children would naturally become bilinguals if both parents speak different languages. (Mr Irvine)

‘Naturally’ here means without much extra, artificial effort, and without significant cost to family life. Again, to cite Frank Findlay: I would have liked her to speak Japanese to them when they were young, because I think they would have learned automatically… rather than having to sit down and have lessons. (Mr Findlay)

The fathers’ own perceived lack of ability was a factor for some: I have a desperate problem with languages… (Mr Farrell)

And so: If he has the opportunity through his mother to speak another language, it would be almost criminal neglect not to actually exploit that and use it. (Mr Corby)

For the fathers, the chance to be raised bilingually was a wonderful opportunity for the children. They would be able to speak another language which would bring them many benefits without much effort and cost. Unfortunately, this assumption was challenged and adjustments often had to be made later (see Chapters 6–9). . Information Ian Inwood, who supported his wife’s decision to speak English with their children, was exceptional in that he saw other families having difficulty in raising their children bilingually, and realised it would not come naturally, especially ‘without cost’, to his family life. She (wife’s Japanese friend) hits her children when they don’t study writing (Japanese). It’s just not my way of doing things. … It’s important that children know WHY they are learning. (Mr Inwood)

 

Initial language decision

Such examples made the Inwoods very cautious about starting along the bilingual path. In contrast, most fathers did not have a concrete idea about what bilingual-child rearing — raising their children to speak Japanese — involved. With little concrete, practical information, they emphasised the merits for the children. Some fathers, like Harry Hope, were later to become much more ambivalent as the project unfolded (see Chapter 9). It was not simply that the fathers did not have concrete information to think about the issue with. They had different types of information from the mothers, information which was generally positive. Some had read scientific articles which discussed the benefits of bilingualism for the brain and intellectual development, or the developing project of bilingual education in Wales. Some expressed surprise when asked whether they had worried about possible negative aspects of raising their children bilingually. When I read Scientific American at lunch time at work, for example, it said bilingualism is beneficial for the child’s intellectual development. I don’t see any problem… I wish my father had taught us Welsh. I don’t speak Welsh and I don’t feel at home in Wales. All the children become bilingual in Wales now. (Mr Andrews) It will be beneficial. I know it. (Mr Rankin)

. Additional reason — for the wife When the reverse question was posed: ‘How would you have responded if your wife had decided to use only English to your child?’ many fathers said that they would have disapproved, again for the sake of the children and for their wife. Steve Sorensen, for instance, recalled that his wife’s English ability was not good and she was very isolated. Speaking Japanese was the only way to make her feel less isolated. When I think back now, it was for my wife’s benefit. She has to communicate as she likes. (Mr Sorensen, after a long pause for reflection)

. Dynamics of decision making: the micro context Having looked at the perspectives of the mothers and the fathers respectively, I shall consider contexts of the decision making in the following two sections. In this section I look at interaction between the mother and father, and the immediate social and situational contexts.





Invisible work

. Interaction between the couple The way the decisions were made (if they were made) appeared to be similar in most cases. It was a wife-led decision, and husbands mostly encouraged it. In fact, there was not much discussion about it because 1) they agreed on the issue, and there was not much need to discuss it, or 2) they were not aware of the issue (as Jim Jeffrey put it: ‘It was frantic, with the first experience with a baby’), or 3) even though they had different opinion — in the Findlay’s case — the husband felt it was not prudent to keep bringing it up. (It was a sensitive topic for his wife, perhaps because of the pressure towards bilingualism.) Some interesting differences emerged between the accounts of non-decision making wives and their husbands. Their husbands tended to present a straightforward story which suggested that the language use pattern was quite simple and ‘natural’ from the beginning. They encouraged the use of Japanese and reported that their wife was happy using Japanese. Sumie Sharpe used English when her first child was born, and later switched to Japanese. According to Simon Sharpe: I suggested it might be a very good idea if she continued to talk in her native tongue. It continued, and has been very straightforward, no problem at all. (Mr Sharpe)

Sumie’s version, however, was that: I think he didn’t say anything (about language use). I used English ‘ — I felt it was the right thing to do. (Mrs Sharpe)

She recalled how she switched to Japanese after some traumatic and painful experiences. Perhaps the discrepancies in this case, and in some non-decision maker couples’ accounts, arouse because of a lack of awareness of the ‘issue’ in the first place, and the tendency not to discuss it. Mothers then had to contend with the issue themselves. . Influence from social networks

Influence of ‘significant others’ Negative information from significant others influenced the decision strongly. Ikuko Inwood’s judgement — using Japanese might cause problems later — was influenced by her mother-in-law, and a close friend’s child. Her motherin-law moved between countries when she was growing up, learned several languages from necessity, and had a hard time, as she told Ikuko and her hus-

 

Initial language decision

band. Her advice to concentrate on a single language was reinforced by the case of Ikuko’s friend’s child, who also had a difficult time because of an unstable linguistic environment. For the first two years the child was raised bilingually (English and Japanese), then her father died, and mother and child moved back to Japan, where she had a very difficult time developing Japanese. Just two years, and the effects lasted so many years. It took her about ten years to catch up with her peers. (Mrs Inwood)

Such considerations — the risks of bilingual childrearing — came into play later for some mothers in the form of needing to ‘prove’ their decision to use Japanese was right. By contrast, positive information on using two languages to bring up children seemed to have been less influential. It supported the ‘underlying assumption’ (children would naturally come to speak two languages), and hence fathers’ support for Japanese use, but was not strong enough to make vacillating mothers decide to use Japanese. Negative information, on the other hand, contributed to mothers’ postponement of decision making. (Such negative information was only accessed by mothers.)

Influence from the Japanese community Being close to a Japanese community and having contacts with other Japanese people did not always result in positive attitudes to Japanese language use, but it did create an environment in which Japanese language use was not seen as unusual. Mothers who had contact with other Japanese mothers in the same situation tended to decide to use Japanese. However, such contact was with families with young children, who had not yet faced the difficulties, for instance, associated with schooling (see Chapter 8). The information about using Japanese was thus mainly positive. In later stages, as more relationships were developed, more negative information was also absorbed. Positive reinforcement sometimes gave way to negative reinforcement. . Situational context Mothers’ social networks at the time of decision making were related to their length of stay in the UK. Those who had been resident longer generally — but not always — had a more extensive support network. It mattered where they lived, of course, such as in metropolitan areas, especially London, where there were many Japanese people, or rural areas, where there were few. Yet even if they lived in London, close to other Japanese people (e.g. Junko Jeffries, Fusayo





Invisible work

Farrell), if they worked right until the end of the pregnancy, they may not have had time to create a network which they could sustain after childbirth. Some mothers had their first child soon after arrival in the UK (e.g. Mrs Andrews, Hope, Kirkland, Sharpe, Thrush), when they were still trying to establish themselves socially and occupationally. This made it difficult to even think about using Japanese only, as it seemed to go against the process of adaptation, and risked giving the impression of being ungrateful to those helping adaptation, especially mothers-in-law. Ritsuko Rankin, who had been in the UK for three years, described her internal tension when she decided to use Japanese: On the one hand I felt I had to adapt in England since I was living here, but on the other hand it was like returning to Japan… I felt I was going in the  direction. (Mrs Rankin)

Generally, if the mother had been living in the UK for some years, and a childrearing support network of Japanese people had been established, the influence of the mother-in-law and English speaking people did not strongly influence the decision. The relationship with the mother-in-law, however, was influential in subsequent childrearing stages, and in the relationships between the couple (which then influenced language use: Chapter 7).

. Socio-historical context of decision making: the macro context From the micro context, we now turn to the macro context, the socio-historical environment in which the mothers in particular were raised, and the period in which they had their first child. The macro context will be considered in more detail later (especially Chapter 7), but some observations are helpful here. . Socio-historical change Some mothers appeared to be primarily focused on language use and childrearing at the arrival of a baby, while others had a different focus in their life. Here there was a difference between younger and older mothers. Younger mothers, it seemed, saw childrearing more as full-time work, which demanded their full attention and energy. Regardless of their earlier ambitions, they felt that for some years their priority was on children. The older mothers, however, seemed to have a more relaxed attitude towards childrearing, and often a clear vision of what they wanted to do while bringing up children. This was not something

 

Initial language decision

ambitious, such as building up a career, but often meant continuing to work through their life. The more intensive view of childrearing, and prospects of greater time spent with their child, appeared to encourage younger mothers to consider using Japanese. Older mothers, on the other hand, who had other interests and were more reluctant to put in the time and energy they thought using Japanese would need, tended to opt for English. Second, historical change has generally — though not universally — resulted in a more favourable environment for parents wanting to raise children bilingually. Minority language mothers are now perhaps more able to express their own need of using their first language to interact with their children, which might account for the different accounts of younger and older mothers regarding the initial language decision, noted earlier. In addition, as also noted earlier, from the mid 1980s books offering practical advice to parents wishing to raise their children bilingually appeared in book shops. More information is available if it is sought. One result was that younger mothers appeared to be more aware that mixed language use might weaken the minority (Japanese) language use and cause confusion. Thus they tended to choose their first language and use it exclusively with their child rather than mixing use. Some mothers, too, reported growing societal acceptance of childhood bilingualism. In Tae Thompson’s case, the perceived change from when she had her first child in 1980 to when she had her third child in 1992 made her feel a lot easier about using Japanese. Wakiko Welsh felt the change had occurred earlier. I was lucky, because around the time I had Graham (1980) people like health visitors’ ideas had started to change. People who had children a couple years before said health visitors said things like: ‘You shouldn’t do it because it’s hard for the child’. (Mrs Welsh)

The difference in these two older mothers’ experiences might be explained by the social environment they lived in. The Thompson family lived in a regional town with a small migrant population, whereas the Welsh family lived in a metropolitan, multicultural area where many migrant people were using their own language. In other words, a change may have occurred at different times and at different speeds in different places. One explanation from the data could be that health professionals’ attitudes were influenced by the multicultural/ multilingual composition of the area they lived and worked in. The more multicultural the area was, the greater the awareness of the issue, and the greater the sensitivity to new research results and information derived from that research.





Invisible work

. Macro and micro context The influence of significant others, particularly with regards negative opinions, has been noted. These opinions are also related to a socio-historical context, such as the negative bilingual experience of a mother-in-law because of forced migration in World War II. Elderly people living in the same block as Masayo Moss expressed a negative opinion about her use of Japanese. Their views of bilingualism were formed many years earlier, another example of uneven social change. Clearly, there were individual differences arising out of different experiences. Thus the decisions of individual families were influenced by a combination of individual circumstances and socio-historical contexts. Figure 5–1 shows the age of the mother at the time of interview, and the language decision made. This would indicate the historical period in which the mothers grew up in Japan. No clear-cut pattern seems to emerge from the figure, but this is not surprising, given that a multiplicity of factors influenced the decision making. Moreover, it is a snapshot view, subject to change. However, given that the two younger mothers who initially chose English switched completely to Japanese, adding to the cluster of younger mothers who chose Japanese, there does seem to be a discernible difference by mother’s age. born in . . . . . . . . . . 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 mother’s age . . . . 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | English non-decision Japanese

x xx x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

xx

Figure 5.1 Mother’s age and initial language decision

Figure 5–2 shows the age of the oldest child at the time of the interview and the language decision made. This indicates the historical time period in which the initial language decision was made. Again, the picture is complex, and it is even more difficult to find a clear pattern, suggesting that the socio-historical context at the time the children were born may have had a subtle, but not necessarily decisive influence.

 

Initial language decision

year . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 first child’s age . . 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | English non-decision Japanese

x

x

x x

x x x x

x x

x x

.

x x x

x x x xx

x

x

x x x x x x

Figure 5.2 Period of initial language decision

Conclusions In this chapter I have presented a ‘snapshot’ view of how ‘decisions’ were made as to which language(s) to use in the 28 families around the time of the birth of the first child. (In some cases there was no clear-cut decision, but this finding in itself is significant.) Most attention was focused on the mothers, who were primarily responsible for the decision, and for implementing it. Twelve mothers started out speaking Japanese. Two factors were especially relevant in the decision to use Japanese; communicative satisfaction — the desire to feel satisfied in communicating to the child — and old hearth ties — the relationship with family in Japan. As we shall see in later chapters, these two factors were not necessarily the same as those which were important to maintain the use of Japanese in later years, but they were important at the beginning. They were significant in that they showed that mothers thought about language use in relational terms, and not simply which language might be advantageous for the child. For those mothers who did not make a clear decision, but started using Japanese ‘naturally’, observation of other families and fear of isolation at home were important. Five mothers started out speaking English, for clear but diverse reasons. These included avoiding ‘Japan’, particularly unpleasant relationships there, dislike of the ‘Japanese way’ of relating to children, orientation to British social networks, and avoiding ‘language work.’ Some mothers foresaw that it would not be easy or natural to raise their child bilingually. They could avoid hard work, and concentrate on other aspects of their life, if they chose English. Some thought that ‘forcing’ Japanese would be detrimental to their child, as well. There was a tendency on the part of these mothers to link Japanese language





Invisible work

with other aspects of Japan or childrearing which they hoped to avoid. As for the eleven non-decision makers, the older mothers talked about a lack of information, which made them unaware of the issue of language at the beginning. Others reported being so caught up in the initial chaos of having a baby that they had little time or energy to think language issues through clearly. And some vacillated according to the advice they were given, or attitudes of people in their extended family. In contrast to the mothers, whose explanations were largely conceived around their own needs, their relations with their child and with significant others, the fathers’ views were based on their ‘child’s interest’ (and sometimes that of their wife). For most, this meant approval of bilingualism, either for their child’s personal intellectual, social and cultural development, or for future job prospects. Underlying these views, however, was the assumption that learning Japanese would come naturally. This was not based on concrete information, such as observation of other Japanese — British intermarried couples. Indeed the sources of information of the fathers and mothers were quite different, as we also saw in the survey responses. Sections 3 and 4 looked at the contexts of decision-making. These included influences and information from social networks (including Japanese communities), situational factors, such as mothers’ length of stay in the UK prior to the birth of their child (which affected the extent to which they had established themselves socially and occupationally), as well as socio-historical contexts. Socio-historical contexts will be elaborated on in the following chapter, but include change in Japan, where the mothers grew up, and change in Britain, making Japanese-English bilingualism more socially acceptable, yet no easier to achieve. Without placing the language decision in these contexts, we cannot fully understand why they were made. In the following chapters we move from this ‘snapshot’, multi-dimensional view to consider changing patterns of language use, and the factors which influenced this change.

Notes . Quotes originally in Japanese have been translated into English, and edited slightly for ease of understanding. CAPITALS indicate the informant’s emphasis and italics are my emphasis throughout. [L] indicates laughter. … indicates an unfinished sentence or a pause, while […] indicates omitted speech. . Andrews, Avery, Corby, Emerson, Manni, Moss, Naylor, Nichols, Rankin, Rogers, Sorensen,

 

Initial language decision

Welsh. The names are all pseudonyms, with the first letter of given names matching those of surnames for ease of recognition (see Appendix 1). . In grounded theory analysis properties or characteristics can be represented by a continuum, and dimensions represent locations along this continuum: Strauss and Corbin, 1992. It is in this sense that they are used here. . Findlay, Inwood, Jeffries, Sharpe, Waring. . This contrasted with fathers’ views. Most fathers wanted their children to learn Japanese from the beginning so that ‘it would come naturally’ without particular effort. No father mentioned learning Japanese later as an option. . A foreign language — usually English — is a compulsory school subject from the age of 13 in Japan. Most pupils continue until they graduate from high-school, but the focus of the study is on reading and writing, and speaking skills are left to individuals. Fumi Findlay learned to speak English after she came to the UK, and Harumi Hope went to the US for a year when she was a high school student. . The Japanese Saturday School caters mainly for the children of short-term residents — Japanese children who will go back to Japan in 3–5 years. The school follows the Japanese national curriculum to facilitate re-entry, and it is difficult for those not fully committed to this path to keep up with it. As we shall see in Chapter 8, it requires a lot of homework by the children, with their mother’s help, on a daily basis. . Appleby, Cook, Ericson, Farrell, Harrison, Hope, Irvine, Kerr, Kirkland, Thompson, Thrush. . Prior to the mid 1980s, lay beliefs about childhood bilingualism tended to focus on the negative effects on childrens’ linguistic and intellectual development. From the mid 1980s ‘(elite) bilingualism studies’ started to build up an academic base, as well as wider audiences (e.g. Arnberg, 1986; Harding and Riley, 1986; Saunders, 1988). . This is still the case at present. Every time childhood bilingualism becomes a topic of the Nami no kai (association for Japanese women with non-Japanese husbands) newsletter, members ask for references. . The doctor was Indian himself. One mother responding to the questionnaire also said her health visitor opposed her use of Japanese.



 

Getting on Adaptations in language use

Introduction Chapter 5 introduced the complexities surrounding the initial language decision. In many cases, the initial pattern of language use was modified over the following years. In some cases this was the result of conscious decisions, and in others it happened gradually, in response to changing circumstances. This chapter provides an overview of the changes, a skeletal account to which the ‘flesh’ will be added in Chapters 7–9. The predominant pattern was towards greater use of English; this had happened in half of the families, and it can be anticipated that it will happen in more, as some of the younger children grow older. The main task of the chapter is to try to describe how this change happened and briefly why, although the final section will consider the two cases in which mothers switched from English to Japanese use, and the three cases in which they started out with English, and maintained English use. (The small number of families in which Japanese was maintained throughout, and Japanese reading and writing was taught, will be discussed in some detail in Chapter 9). The discussion is organised into four periods, based on the approximate age of the oldest child: 1) 0–2 years old, when a language use pattern was being established; 2) 3–4 years old, when there was greater interaction with other children, and prospects of starting school began to be an issue; 3) 4–6 years old, when children began school; and 4) later years, especially 9–11, when language needs were changing, at the same time as children were becoming independent actors, voicing their own preferences. These four periods make up the first four sections, where pressures to reduce Japanese language use are discussed, while the last section looks at those who started out with English. I would like to re-emphasise at this point that this is not a study of language



Invisible work

use per se. My objective is not to measure language use and competence, or to relate this to the linguistic environment. This would have required a fundamentally different research agenda, asking different questions, with different methods. Rather, the objective in this chapter is to understand, in a very broad sense, how language use as reported by the parents changed (or did not change) over time, and what kinds of factors influenced this. .

Establishing a language use pattern (age approx. 0–2 years)

Table 6–1 shows the initial language used by the mother, as described in Chapter 5. Figure 6–1 gives a rough indication of changes in the mother’s language use over time, based on the mothers’ accounts. (It is not necessarily an accurate reflection of actual language use, and cannot capture all the complexities and nuances of language use or change; it is only intended to present a broad-brush picture.) In some cases the first child was still in the first period, or period 1 (age 0–2) English Findlay Inwood Waring Jeffries Sharpe

period 2 (age 3–4)

Ericson Farrell Kerr Harrison Thrush Irvine

English/Japanese Hope Kirkland Thompson Appleby Cook Ericson Farrell Harrison Kerr Thrush Irvine Japanese Andrews Corby Emerson Moss Nichols Rankin Welsh Sorensen Manni Naylor Rogers Avery

Figure 6.1 Change in mother’s language use

period 3 (age 4–6)

period 4 (age 9–) Findlay Inwood Waring

Cook Thompson

Hope Appleby Kirkland

Rankin Nichols Rogers Sharpe

Corby

Emerson

Jeffries

Naylor Andrews Moss Avery

Welsh Sorensen Manni

 

Getting on

the second, so further changes may occur in the coming years. The predominant trend, as shown by the figure, is for mothers to use more English with their child, although this happened in different periods in different families. Two factors in the initial decision to use Japanese — communicative needs and old hearth ties — were influential in this process. In the face of new challenges, when either factor was absent, Japanese use was decreased or abandoned more easily. The trigger for change was a combination of the four intervening conditions described in Chapter 5–parental aspirations, immediate social context, situational context, and socio-historical context — although cumulative developments from previous periods were also important. In the fourth period, too, children became active agents in the dynamics, and influenced parental aspirations in particular. Table 6.1 Starting language English English and Japanese Japanese

05 11 12

total

28

. Implementing and trying out For those mothers who consciously and definitely decided to use Japanese with their children, the first period was one of implementing their decision — establishing Japanese language use. From early on they began to create an environment to support their Japanese use, by spending time with similar families, or visiting Japanese families. For mothers who did not make a clear decision, on the other hand, it was a ‘trying out’ period. Here the immediate social context outside the family played a very influential role in the language use of the mother. As in decision-making, fathers’ inputs did not appear to be very significant in this period. . Immediate social context I couldn’t stay at home with Emily because it was boring. The more we went out to meet other people, the more we used English. I felt unnatural speaking Japanese. (Mrs Ericson)

Some mothers (Mrs Ericson, Farrell, Kerr, Irvine, Appleby, Harrison) did not seem to perceive a clear need to support Japanese language use by creating a





Invisible work

Japanese social network. Interestingly, they tended to have lived in the UK longer, and worked, until they had their first child. When they found it was not easy to create a Japanese network that they felt comfortable with, they were happy associating with English mothers. Other vacillating mothers were ambivalent about creating a social network for language support purposes, feeling that it was manipulative and artificial. I hesitate to go somewhere just for the sake of Japanese. It’s kind of manipulative. I don’t like Japanese gatherings; I feel out of place. Both Lisa and I want to have a nice time. I wish I had a good friend I could talk to in Japanese. (Mrs Harrison) You try to make friends with people you wouldn’t with if it were in Japan (for the sake of Japanese language use). It’s not natural. (Mrs Ericson)

Even mothers determined to use Japanese were not without ambivalent feelings, and for some, creating a Japanese network conflicted with their own desire to adapt to life in the UK. On the one hand I felt I had to adapt to England since I was living here, but on the other hand, it was like returning to Japan. If we were in Japan and using English, it would have been more natural. I could improve my English, and this would be positive. (Mrs Rankin)

Without a strong Japanese social network, however, it was difficult to maintain a commitment to Japanese use, particularly when combined with other difficulties, which will be considered below. . Social difficulties Mothers faced other difficulties in sustaining Japanese language use: It required courage to speak Japanese in front of people who didn’t understand it. It’s a little impolite. I began to speak in English more… Speaking Japanese when we were alone and English in front of other people became BLURRED. (Mrs Appleby)

Atsuko Appleby felt particularly awkward about using Japanese in front of her mother-in-law, who frequently visited them.1 She shifted to speaking mainly English when her first child was about three. Again, even mothers determined to use Japanese found they had to use English sometimes to make a situation comprehensible to others. When mothers began to use English more, either because it was awkward to

 

Getting on

use Japanese in front of others, or because they felt that creating a Japanese social network was unnatural, their child’s English developed more than their Japanese. The result was increasing doubts about the viability of using Japanese: I read Japanese books to Emily in the end of the day, but she started to have problems understanding it. She started answering in English, and not paying attention to Japanese. I felt it might not be going to work. (Mrs Ericson)

If such mothers wanted to maintain Japanese use with their child, they now had to ‘teach’ it, which made the situation more demanding and stressful. They had to assess how much their children could understand and adjust their Japanese to that level, or translate pieces into English to ensure comprehension. This again was discouraging. Some began to feel their child was an ‘English child’ who would anyway live in the UK for the rest of their life. Dropping Japanese offered the prospect of a simpler life. . Negative examples Vacillating mothers not only collected information about raising children bilingually through their social network, but also ‘negative examples.’ These included instances of communication failure between mothers and children, fathers isolated from a mother’s determination to use Japanese, and marriages falling apart. (Whether the marriage broke down because of this determined use of Japanese, or a breakdown between partners reinforced the mother’s determination to use Japanese was not clear, but it tended to be interpreted as the former.) I thought I might be able to do it. But I came to know a family with a boy a little older than my daughter. His mother was so determined to teach him Japanese, and always talked in Japanese. She was extreme. She tried to save up money so that they could go back to Japan as many times as possible. One evening when I went to collect my daughter, the house was all dark, there was no heater or light on. She was trying to save money, and the two children were wrapped up in a blanket watching a Japanese video. It was very strange. The father started to come home later and later, dropping in to the pub. I don’t know what happened to them, but I felt something was not right. (Mrs Ericson)

Such examples caused vacillators to be more cautious, or at least to justify their vacillation. It caused Etsuko Ericson to abandon Japanese use: If that was what it took to make a child bilingual, I didn’t want to do it. (Mrs Ericson)





Invisible work

. Situational context — pressing demands Situational factors influenced childrearing, which influenced the quality of the mothers’ life in general. When these factors resulted in an extra burden, some vacillating mothers abandoned the use of Japanese. Most significant in this regard was the temperament and health of the child (cf. Chapter 7, Section 4). If the child was difficult at the outset, mothers had their hands full just coping with day to day life. Raising children to become bilingual became a secondary issue. Atsuko Appleby, ambivalent about deliberately creating a social network to support Japanese, and with frequent contact with her mother-in-law, recalled the birth of her second child: You always have to be aware of it (using Japanese). But I was preoccupied by the everyday reality. The older one was still two and a half, and still had nappies on. (Mrs Appleby)

Her husband recalled how the older child reacted negatively to the new arrival, a reaction which persisted and caused extra difficulties. Kimi Kirkland had to take care of a sick relative (of her husband) which required a lot of energy. She did not have enough energy left to concentrate on fostering Japanese use, or creating an environment favourable for it, although she did not abandon her use of Japanese. I could speak Japanese when I wasn’t under strain. But you can’t do it if you don’t have that sense of well-being. Even when I had some free time, I just didn’t have the energy. (Mrs Kirkland)

. Socio-historical context On the one hand, it would appear that a growing acceptance of childhood bilingualism encouraged mothers to use Japanese, or at least led to try it out. At least with regards Japanese, Japan’s rise in international status along with its rising economic power has probably created a favourable perception of Japanese-English bilingualism. Vacillating mothers received various encouragement from various sources. Health visitors and others all praised and encouraged me, although they didn’t really think about it deeply. (Mrs Farrell)

One the other hand, the practical circumstances in which the mothers raised their children using Japanese had probably not changed so much. There were still no formal institutions to support early Japanese-English bilingualism.

 

Getting on

Early childrearing and minority language teaching was left to individual families, and mothers had to make the effort to arrange an appropriate environment. Some who were unable to do so perceived this as a personal failure. Kevin Kerr, who had argued with his wife about not speaking Japanese enough, before deciding to let things go, observed: She’s been feeling that she’s failed, I haven’t succeeded, this is my fault. (Mr Kerr)

. Fathers

Support The above suggests that bilingual-child rearing does not come naturally, nor was it a natural/easy job for the mothers to use Japanese in the manner suggested by bilingual-child rearing books. Here, help from fathers, both practical and emotional, could be a vital source of support to keep the process going. In general however, the ‘bilingualism comes naturally’ view held by many fathers limited the amount of support they offered. Some fathers did try to help in various ways, ranging from moral support to learning Japanese themselves, to strengthen Japanese use at home. Unless they had established a certain proficiency before the arrival of the child, however — through living in Japan, for instance — those fathers who attempted to learn with their children found it very difficult to keep up. Pressures from work increased the difficulty. I attempted to learn Japanese with the children. It was OK, but I wasn’t picking up an awful lot. My work load is hard. (Mr Kirkland)

Increasing demands from work often coincided with this early period in which the language use pattern was being established, particularly in the case of younger fathers who were building their career. Absence of the father not only meant less support in daily life and childrearing, but meant that responsibility for bilingual-child rearing was not shared: Kenneth helped, but he came back late and was very tired… It’s like if I don’t take responsibility for things, nothing will move in this house. I worried about it (son’s language development) because I knew if he had a delay in English, they would say it’s my fault. (Mrs Kirkland)

Not only did many fathers assume that Japanese language development would come naturally, but they tended not to think that there might be negative effects.





Invisible work

Worries such as those of Kimi Kirkland, therefore, were not shared. Vacillating mothers bore most of the burden of worry by themselves. That fact that other people like health visitors appeared to share the fathers’ optimism increased their sense of isolation.

Communication Could these issues have been discussed and resolved? Not very easily, it would seem, for several reasons. First, some couples were still trying to establish communication between themselves. The differences in accounts of this period between husbands and wives suggests that this was not always successful. Some had their first child soon after getting married, and establishing communication in this situation can be complicated even when the couple share the same language. In a different language, the problems are compounded. I didn’t say it because    ’  what I meant. I just wished he would understand (without me saying it). If he could understand Japanese well, I would have communicated verbally, more. (Mrs Rankin)

Ritsuko Rankin later realised how her husband had been hurt by her blunt English. Tiredness with the demands of early childrearing increased irritability and decreased patience. Before the child was born, according to Ritsuko Rankin, communication difficulties were compensated for by mutual interest and time spent together, but after the birth, much of that interest and time was directed towards the baby. You need some help in that situation, if not from your husband, then someone to look after the child while you collect yourself and go back to who you are. (Mrs Rankin)

In her case there was the additional difficulty of her husband feeling isolated by her use of Japanese with the child. When I spoke Japanese, he seemed to feel distant (from us). I think I felt it, although this period was very demanding … I guess it was easier for me to talk to David (son) in Japanese than Richard in English. (Mrs Rankin)

Even when there were no serious communication difficulties, and the father enthusiastically supported Japanese language use, there were other problems. When enthusiastic fathers discussed language, they tended to suggest that their wife increase or improve their Japanese language use. Sometimes this was met with a harsh response, and after several attempts, they realised it was a sensitive issue, and dropped the subject.

 

Getting on

No more discussion on this unless it’s a huge argument. (Mr Ericson)

Again, this was partly related to the heavy work load of early childrearing, and the nature of the social support network. Fred Farrell, who described his daughter as ‘very active and difficult,‘ noted: It’s quite intense for her to bring up kids. And I’m sure she gets quite tired and irritable and things. Trying to teach a kid who’s starting to edge towards English anyway, to try to keep up with Japanese, I think it’s quite difficult. (Mr Farrell)

Husbands said their wives took comments on language use as a personal attack. She’s sensitive about it. It does tend to be misunderstood as an attack upon her, an attack on her shortcomings. (Mr Ericson) Atsuko used Japanese only for orders and when I commented on that, she took it as an attack, against Japanese, and she stopped speaking Japanese. (Mr Appleby)

Perhaps their wives had already thought things through and did not want to drag them out in a discussion, or perhaps they were frustrated as well as tired, but criticism was explosive: I think I was very frustrated and wanted to burst against someone, that’s why it touched a nerve. I remember clearly that I felt very angry about what he said…. I was frustrated staying at home all alone, looking after children. He must have been frustrated from work, but I had nowhere to let off steam. (Mrs Appleby)

She added: Looking back, it’s not the kind of thing to get angry about, but I was furious and felt Ashley and my mother-in-law (who simply asked about her Japanese use) were interfering. In spite of me doing my best to speak Japanese, I felt they were interfering. (Mrs Appleby)

She wondered how much people who did not speak other languages could understand, anyway. On top of the multiple tasks of childrearing, getting used to the life in the UK, trying to establish communication with their husband, and attempting to raise their child/ren bilingually, some of the mothers were trying to cope with a sense of isolation. Unconsciously I felt that I would be separated from my family in Japan for the rest of my life… It’s like someone telling you that you are going to die in this foreign land. (Mrs Appleby)

Mothers were not necessarily fully aware of the causes of such stresses, and they





Invisible work

had extra difficulties verbalising them in English. In the case of the Kerr family, the following situation arose. So, we got into this ridiculous situation where I would be trying to speak Japanese at home and sometimes she replied to me in English. If I challenged her on this, it would end up in row. It got to the point this year that I decided ’  . If it happens, it’s a bonus. If it doesn’t happen, that’ .    ’  , that’s what I decided. (Mr Kerr)

In conclusion, all of the mothers discussed in this section were positive about using Japanese at the beginning, but the outcome was strongly influenced by the immediate social context in which they raised their children. The mothers and children spent most of the time without fathers because simply the fathers were working outside, and some of them were very busy. Hence the social context mainly consisted of friends and relatives. Interaction with these people was influential, and information from those people influenced language use quite strongly.

. Thinking about school (age approx. 3–4) . Language delay anxiety In the second period, some processes identified in the first period continued, resulting in decreased Japanese language use by vacillating mothers. Just when this happened depended on individual experiences, relations between the couples, and the reasons mothers had for using Japanese. In this period, however, a factor which was largely latent earlier started to become prominent. This was concern about (English) ‘language delay’. In the first period children were small and not speaking much in either language. Even if there was a perceived language delay, the immediate effects were not great. In the second period, however, as the prospect of school education approached, anxieties about English language adequacy surfaced. This was one cause for vacillation in the previous period, but its intensity increased, and it was felt more intensely by mothers who had been stricter on Japanese language use in the earlier period. Those vacillating mothers who had already come to use quite a lot of English in their daily lives had less to worry about. Their children were already stronger in English than in Japanese, and their response was simply to decrease their Japanese use further (e.g. Kana Kerr, Kimi Kirkland). The situation was more serious for determined Japanese-speaking mothers. How would they cope with a perceived delay in their child’s English language development? Whether

 

Getting on

the child was really behind in developmental terms or not was not always clear from these mothers’ accounts, but there is no doubt that they did worry. They thought their children were behind in coping with tasks — academic and social — by observing and comparing their interaction with other children. They tended to do this at play groups or nursery, which all children attended at least part time by the time they were three. (Only the children of four families attended full time nursery). Thus: Ken was not adapting well at the first nursery. It was more learning oriented and strict. The nurses weren’t sure if it was his character or his undeveloped English. I wasn’t sure either, but I felt it was interrelated. He socialises much easier with Japanese speaking children. (Mrs Moss, who spoke Japanese only to her son, and lived in a predominantly white residential area)

Although the nature of the child is influential in this first exposure to an educational institution, mothers and other related people couldn’t help relating difficulties to the child’s language use. Masayo Moss noted: I know one mother who changed from Japanese to English when the child was 4, worrying about her child starting school. But her English was not so good and she couldn’t speak completely in English. The child was confused for some years after that. I sympathise. I don’t know how many times I thought about changing to English myself. If you don’t have strong mind about it, I think you would change then. (Mrs Moss)

Ironically, because such mothers were determined to use Japanese, they also had to worry about English development. Because of the exclusive use of Japanese, and frequently a Japanese-dominated social network, their child’s exposure to English was limited. Sending their child to nursery or a play group was one means of increasing their child’s exposure to English, but this was by no means a panacea, as we shall see later in the case of Mrs Emerson (Chapter 7). But what about the fathers? The problem of busy fathers has already been discussed. There were two additional problems. First was the assumption the fathers had from the time of decision making, that language acquisition comes naturally. Yet although the children lived in an English speaking world in a broad sense, some mothers were so skillful and keen to create a Japanese-friendly environment for the children and for themselves that it became one in which the child did not learn English ‘naturally’. It was difficult for fathers to realise this was happening, or else they thought that once school started, the childrens’ English would develop ‘naturally.’





Invisible work

Second, the effort by mothers to create a Japanese-friendly environment led to the isolation of the father from childrearing, and from the children themselves. In Eric Emerson’s case, this was intensified by the pressures of work. In the case of the Moss family, the consequences were profound. In a way, he missed the really sweet, early days. He couldn‘t take care of them because he couldn’t understand what they were saying. He sometimes said he would look after them for a whole day, but came back after half an hour saying, ‘I can’t understand what they are saying.’ Now he doesn’t look after them often. (Mrs Moss)

It is difficult to know what is cause and effect, but a consequence was that such fathers could not provide a counterbalancing English input which would reduce language delay anxiety. . Social context In this period there was increased contact with English speaking families through pre-school organisations, giving mothers different — more education-related — information. Such information did not influence vacillating mothers so strongly because they felt their children’s English was already adequate, and they did not have the extra project of nurturing Japanese. On the other hand, it encouraged determined Japanese-speaking mothers to collect information in order to make comparisons. They felt they had to make sure that their child had no problems in terms of English competence at school, which their child would enter soon. To do this, they had to observe other English children, and compare their own children with them. They were very sensitive to comments like: One of my close friends who was not speaking her language (Filipino) to her children said to me ‘It’s all your fault that Ken is not speaking English well.’ I said he would catch up soon in the future, but she said ‘What will you do if he doesn’t? It’s too late then (when he starts school).’ I shut up and mumbled, and waited for the topic of conversation to change. (Mrs Moss)

Mothers seemed to have perceived, however, that there was no way of proving decisively that the Japanese project was not harmful until their child started school and formal assessments were made (through feedback from teachers, assignment into groups, feedback from the children, and more recently standard achievement tasks and tests [SATs]). Mothers like Masayo Moss and Kimi Kirkland had to live with this worry for some years.

 

Getting on

. Socio-historical context — starting school early The increasing emphasis on early schooling and literacy has had an impact on families with (young) determined mothers. The mothers felt they had to develop their child’s English by the time s/he started school at four years old. These same mothers were also exposed to Japanese schemes emphasising early learning like Kumon Method, discussed in the next section. Older mothers, on the other hand, seemed to have had fewer worries. They had more relaxed approach towards education, and towards childrearing in general, as we shall also see in the next section.

. Beginning school (age approx. 4–6) For families in which the mothers were already using both English and Japanese, this period was a continuation of previous period. The children were quite strong in English, and some were not speaking much Japanese. More formal exposure to English, and more contact with English speaking children, strengthened this tendency. Families of determined mothers who still predominantly spoke Japanese, however, faced new stresses and changes in this period. Entering school meant not only that the children were exposed further to the wider society, but that their development was formally assessed. Mothers received confirmation or ‘judgement’ about the effects of using Japanese on their child’s development. Various pressures resulted, and changes in language use occurred. . Sensitive and worried mothers These pressures applied particularly to families with young mothers, who were not only determined to speak Japanese, but were already sensitive to their child’s language development. Many (Mrs Andrews, Corby, Emerson, Moss, Kerr, Nichols, Rankin, Welsh, Manni, Naylor) mentioned that they knew that their child’s English development might be delayed slightly because of Japanese use, but they believed it would be all right in a long run. However, a number of them worried that as a result of using Japanese at home, their child might start behind the other children at school in terms of literacy work, face difficulties in coping with awkward social situations, and lack confidence in general. Masayo Moss’ son was involved in a fight at school:





Invisible work

I felt very sorry for him. He was crying at nights, repeatedly saying to me ‘I didn’t do it’. He was suffering because of what I wanted to do, because he couldn’t speak English well.’ (Mrs Moss)

Feeling guilty, she seriously contemplated changing to English, but her husband objected. He took a more relaxed approach about such incidents, based on his own childhood experiences. The Andrews had a similar story, and differences in perception between mother and father again partly derived from their own childhood experiences. (The mothers recalled their childhood days as peaceful, and were worried about any kind of violence). The fathers thought their wife was being too sensitive, partly as a result of them being in a foreign land. Because Masayo is bringing up children in a foreign country, she is bound to be concerned. I should be much more worried if it were in Japan because I wouldn’t understand Japanese educational system… Although I don’t know much about recent education, I’m quite relaxed about it because the kids will work it out. (Mr Moss)

Indeed, this was the first time the mothers had encountered formal education in the UK, which was an extra concern, compounded if the father’s involvement was limited. If there was a problem, they wanted to make sure it was not language-related, and so it appeared that they became particularly sensitive about aspects of their children’s English.

. Need for comparison Worried mothers felt the need to compare their children with other children, to reassure themselves that it was safe to continue with Japanese language use. Differences in perceptions with their husband (of the type just mentioned) meant that there was no-one they could share their worries with, and even reassurance from professionals seemed to be of little comfort.2 It did not matter that their child might catch up in a few years time, what mattered to the mothers was whether their child was being negatively influenced by their use of Japanese at the time of starting school. In this connection, some mothers talked about ‘conditional’ acceptance of childhood bilingualism: It’s like if a child’s English is not good enough, it might be a problem. As long as the English is , an additional language is no problem. (Mrs Welsh) My children are doing well at school, so the school accepts it (using Japanese at

 

Getting on

home). If Andrew wasn’t performing well the teachers would ask ‘what language are you speaking?’ Then; ‘Since your son is not doing very well in English, why don’t you concentrate on English? Then it might improve.’ (Mrs Kirkland)

Conditional acceptance in some cases applied at home as well. Fathers who put a high priority on school education started to weigh the project against school work, and with growing pressures on time, to emphasise the latter. (e.g. Nigel Nichols; see Chapter 8). A precondition for this was that they were not already marginalised. In the Emerson’s case, the father refrained from intervening, in spite of being aware his daughter was having difficulty at school because of her limited English. That was mainly because of the pattern established whereby Mrs Emerson, determined to use Japanese, took the lead in issues concerning their daughter’s education. . Direct influence of socio-historical context On the subject of conditional acceptance, Kimi Kirkland noted increased sensitivity to school performance as a result of the introduction of league tables. Following the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988 for children in state schools aged 5 to 16, standard assessment tasks (tests) for 7 years olds — her son’s age — were introduced in 1991. She believed league tables influenced how schools would react if young bilingual children made a slow start at school. Mothers felt under pressure from the increasing emphasis on early literacy, in which children as young as four and five are taught reading and writing in their reception year. Some felt their child was simply not ready to begin reading and writing.3 At this young age individual differences between children are great, and mothers tended to see their children as struggling to cope with things that came easily to other children. Aki Andrews found it difficult to decide whether her son was behind in general, or whether it was his English as a result of her using Japanese. She had to do English reading tasks with him when she felt he was not ready yet. Although his English appeared slightly behind other children in his class, there did not appear to be a problem with his Japanese, and she felt that if the school had introduced literacy one year later, his English might have caught up, and he might have been more ready for formal literacy tasks as well. The early introduction of literacy tasks placed extra pressures on Japanese-predominant families, and some vacillating mothers felt hesitant about using Japanese in this situation (see Chapter 8).





Invisible work

. Another task — Japanese reading and writing The introduction of English reading and writing led mothers to face changes in their approach to Japanese use — from their children learning in everyday life to sitting down to learn. The importance of sitting down to learn is emphasised by influential early learning schemes for Japanese — Kumon Method in particular — which the mothers had come across while collecting information to further their childrens’ Japanese. The Japanese project now became two-fold — continuing speaking in a daily life, and introducing and expanding Japanese reading and writing. Without reading and writing, mothers realised, their child’s Japanese would slip behind their English, and there would be more and more things they could say in English, but not Japanese. This would make it difficult to maintain speaking in daily life. Mothers who decided to introduce Japanese reading and writing at the same time as English reading and writing, however, faced the prospect of overburdening their child (as well as themselves). Some fathers also expressed reservations about trying to teach too much to the child at such a young age. All these stresses coming at once led some mothers (e.g. Chiaki Corby, Asayo Avery) to rethink the feasibility of teaching their child Japanese reading and writing skills. . ‘Reminding’ and communication As they spent more time at school, and with English speaking friends, the ability of many children to express themselves in English began to outstrip their ability to express themselves in Japanese. Mothers of these children faced a growing dilemma between the desire for good communication and warm relations with their child on the one hand, and attempting to encourage them to express themselves in Japanese on the other. It was not a matter of the children rebelling against using Japanese. They did not say they did not want to use Japanese, but they used English more. Some mothers then found that in order to maintain Japanese communication, they needed to engage in reminding work. This was very tiring, because they needed to do it frequently, and they were also anxious about whether their child was just tired, or resisting, whether they (mothers) weren’t doing enough as language teachers, and so on. The constant need for reminding, they also feared, might adversely effect the nature of the relationship with their child. I have to remind her (Yumi, aged 6) — ‘Wasn’t that in English?’ and so on. It depends on her mood whether she changes or not. If I really insist, she sometimes gets annoyed.

 

Getting on

TO: It must be hard for you, too. Yes, so I try very hard not to fight with her, not to explode. (Mrs Jeffries, who decided she had to persevere) My husband says I’m too soft on the children (three sons), but I think this is the only way I can manage. When he says it would be good if the children could speak both languages, I think; ‘Oh yes, and who is going to do it?’ (Mrs Thrush, who came to use mostly English)

. Changing needs (age approx. 9–11) Changes in the fourth period were less visible and dramatic than in the third period. The two main changes were in the nature of ‘learning Japanese’, and in the children themselves in terms of their growing autonomy. For the first time children became truly interactive agents, influencing the pattern of language use through their own preferences or priorities (cf. Chapter 9). . Transformation of ‘learning Japanese’ This period was marked by childrens’ overall intellectual development through school education, creating an obvious gap between their English and Japanese ability. Through school projects the children were learning abstract ideas and a wide range of vocabulary, which limited daily Japanese conversation at home could not match. What to do about this gap became an important question. There’s no real problem about speaking at home, but if you want them to be able to speak Japanese in various situations outside the home, you have to make educational plans, and be thorough about it. (Mrs Rankin)

For determined mothers, staying still at this point seemed like falling behind. They had to decide whether to ‘stay still’ (fall behind) by abandoning Japanese reading or writing skills, to ‘move forward,‘ which required new commitments, or to give up, which was not easy given what had already been invested in the project. This turned out to be a major turning point for all the mothers who were still using Japanese (cf. Figure 6–1). The first option meant trying to maintain daily conversation in Japanese as much as possible (combined with cartoons from satellite TV or videos, for instance). This did not necessarily mean the childrens’ Japanese ability decreased, but the more the children developed and conversation became complex, the less sufficient daily conversation became for communicational needs.





Invisible work

Although the mothers still used Japanese as much as possible, they had to supplement this with English for communication purposes. When, as a legacy of a previous period of isolation, fathers were not communicating with their children very much, the need was even greater. Mrs Rankin, who had been using Japanese exclusively, reflected: He (son, aged eight) couldn’t say what happened at school in Japanese, what he did and how he felt. I’m not surprised that he just doesn’t have the vocabulary and doesn’t know how to say it in Japanese. I can’t teach him how to say it unless I know what he wants to say. So now I let him speak English when he needs to. Especially when he had a hard time accepting his father’s leaving home, he needed to express his feelings and he could only do it in English. (Mrs Rankin)

Tae Thompson noted that she felt a ‘can’t be bothered’ attitude from her children regarding the use of Japanese. Gradually English interaction increased, and some mothers had difficulty even protecting the last line — daily conversation. . Difficulties in learning Japanese in this period Trying to ‘move forward’ meant sitting down and learning. After mastering the two Japanese phonetic alphabets, kanji (Chinese characters, used in Japanese writing) study was done in the form of practising reading and writing.4 It was very difficult for mothers to become a teacher themselves, as Natsuko Nichols commented. Those near a Japanese supplementary school sent their children there for study on Saturday. Supplementary schools, however, are oriented towards Japanese children who will go back to Japan after three or four years. They follow the Japanese national curriculum and the pace is very fast, requiring a lot of homework, and producing serious tensions in some intermarried families. The amount of input — time and energy, hassle… We did little by little during weekdays, and you have to spend a lot of time on Fridays, otherwise you can’t keep up… They would lose all of the Saturday when they went to Saturday School. Social occasions of the local school and all sorts of sports events — we paid, children and parents, that kind of sacrifice. (Mrs Appleby)

At the same time, with growing autonomy and individual preferences, some children started to resist doing what parents wanted them to do. Studying Japanese meant not only doing what parents asked them to do, but losing time to do other things. It worked when they were younger. They spent an hour in the morning (studying Japanese). But Clare (first child, aged 14) is older and much more resistant. (Mr Nichols)

 

Getting on

For piano, I tried encouragement, praise, reward, punishment, did everything. I thought it’s real hard work. I don’t want to do it again for Japanese. It would become a  . (Mrs Rankin)

Putting too much pressure on children risked alienating them from Japanese, and potentially their mother. I started to recognise their individuality. When they were young, it was up to me what kind of direction they should grow up in, but as they grow older, I’ve begun to realise things are not going to go as I planned. They have what they want to do, rather than me putting pressure on them and developing antiJapan feelings… (Mrs Rankin)

. Mothers realising their own needs As their children became more independent, mothers gained more time and space to think about their own needs, and their interaction with their social environment as individuals rather than as mothers. All the mothers with secondary school age children talked about their own wishes and needs, and their desire to participate in society through work (see Chapter 9). How this desire was met in turn influenced their language use. Natsuko Nichols could not find a suitable job, in spite of looking for one for many years. Her work as a midwife in Japan had been very satisfying, and she was unable to find anything similar in terms of satisfaction. She still identified strongly with herself when she was living in Japan — happily working, an active, confident adult participating in society — fifteen years earlier. This made her persist with Japanese, including reading and writing, more than might otherwise have been the case, even though it resulted in discord at home: We try to set time aside to sit and learn kanji, but the children don’t want to do it. Then Nigel says ‘You don’t need to do such things’ ‘Hooray!’ and that’s the end. Repeatedly, for 15 years [sic]. (Mrs Nichols)

She felt that not only was her project being undermined, but her very identity.5 In addition, she felt that not speaking Japanese would isolate her in the family, making her an outsider. This case was somewhat extreme, related to her experiences in Japan and the UK, but even where the children were less assertive and the husband supportive, ‘moving forward’ was not easy, and other mothers expressed concern that their children would come to dislike Japan and Japanese as a result of their efforts.





Invisible work

. Fathers Very often Clare (14) has no time at all for herself. Fitting in homework and music practice — piano and violin. I’m very keen for the children to speak Japanese. I would like them to speak, I would like them to write. I would  them to be able to find half an hour or an hour a day when they can sit down and do that. The problem is, certainly in the term time, that’s just not possible. (Mr Nichols)

Fathers were reluctant to see their children burdened with Japanese reading and writing tasks on top of increasing school work — which they felt was a lot greater than when they themselves went to school — and felt that with their childrens’ increasing autonomy, it would create friction. They felt a realistic solution would be for the children to at least continue speaking. Forcing something at this stage, it blows up. If they want, you can support, like learning piano. Harmony, pleasure, and happiness is important. (Mr Thompson, with two teenage sons)

There was something in the ‘project’, however, that did not appear to be attainable through harmony, pleasure and happiness. Moreover, it was an emotional issue for mothers, related to their identity, and their life in Japan and the UK. Ritsuko Rankin was not willing to abandon reading and writing for some time (until her son was eight) in spite of building tension in her family. Her husband drifted away from the family, possibly because of her strong determination to raise the children in Japanese, and communication difficulties from the first period. She did not abandon her project because: I felt I had made more than   already. I stopped my life (career) in Japan, came to the UK, and had children. My work was to bring them up, teaching Japanese properly. To abandon this would be like  . (Mrs Rankin)

In spite of all these difficulties, some families (Hope, Sorensen, Rogers, Manni) managed to keep expanding their childrens’ Japanese ability right through this period.6 Common to all was at least one strict parent. In the first two cases it was the father, who believed in a strict upbringing and in children studying hard. This helped the mother to manage the project. In the case of the Manni family, it was a strong minded mother with a single (‘easy-natured’) daughter. Although these families might appear to have been successful in raising children bilingually, there was a cost to pay, which was greater than the father had expected.

 

Getting on

A lot of the childrens’ time when they were young was taken by my wife teaching them Japanese. It’s been terribly difficult on the two boys and Harumi. They came back from school, watched  and had dinner. And then    3, 4  to their bedrooms to do Japanese,  . The children did it because Daddy said to do it. I didn’t see much of them in my own house. (Mr Hope)

The costs became apparent when it was time for the children to leave home, as we shall see in Chapter 9.

. Swing-over (English to Japanese) Junko Jeffries and Sumie Sharpe started out using English, and switched to Japanese two to three years into childrearing. They share a number of features in common. First, although they spoke English at the beginning, it was not the result of a firm decision. Second, both mothers were in the process of getting used to life in the UK when their first child was born, having arrived less than one year earlier — two months before in the case of Sumie Sharpe — and were perhaps trying to over-assimilate. I thought since I came to the UK, I would use English, I would become English, I had to become English. (Mrs Jeffries)

Third, they had not had much opportunity to gather information about using Japanese, and had little opportunity to speak with other Japanese people prior to the birth of their first child. In both cases they reflected that they did not realise that Japanese was so important for them. (Interestingly, both fathers had completely forgotten about the difficulties their wife had experienced in relation to language use with the children.) Sumie Sharpe’s husband was often away at sea for long periods of time, and her mother-in-law came to live with her. After a while she felt claustrophobic, and found a job at an Japanese company, leaving her son in the care of her mother-in-law. When she became pregnant again and had to quit her job, she decided to switch to Japanese. She later realised it was to regain her son from her mother-in-law. Fred was the first grandchild, and my mother-in-law wanted to repeat what she had done with Simon (husband), like bathing him in Simon’s old bath, talking about what she did and how to do things around the baby. She brought out Simon’s old shoes and told me how she bathed him… I needed to do





Invisible work

things in my own way, to show her that Fred was not Simon…I wanted to do something very different . Suddenly ‘Japan’ became important. (Mrs Sharpe)

Junko Jeffries’ mother-in-law helped her to get to know about the life in the UK and provided a strong role model for her. Junko’s goal was to become like her mother-in-law. After a while, however, she felt that she, too, had to establish her independence, and part of this was using Japanese, which she now realised was the most natural language for her to communicate with her children in. Her mother-in-law protested that it made them seem like they were not a family. I said to her, ‘For you Japanese is not family, but for me it is family. As long as we are in this house, I will speak in Japanese. When we go to your place, we will try to speak English.’ I was upset and even before I started talking, tears were coming out of my eyes. So I think she understood my feelings. She might have felt that she would become distant (from her granddaughter). I understood that because when Yumi (daughter) was only speaking English, my mother in Japan said she didn’t feel close to her. (Mrs Jeffries)

These mothers became some of the most determined Japanese-speaking mothers. They had experienced difficulties in using English, and this seemed to give them more strength to use Japanese. Sumie Sharpe spent a lot of time and energy teaching her oldest child reading and writing Japanese until he started secondary school, when she began to think this would cut off other opportunities for him. She wanted him to do violin, swimming and science. In addition, as with many other mothers, she started to see her children as ‘English children’ and modified her ‘project.’ Junko Jeffries’ oldest child was still seven years old; this challenging period was still to come.

. It’s decided: now let’s get on with the main business (English -English) The families which chose not to use Japanese at home had clear priorities in their life, and language was not one of them. In fact, the mothers deliberately avoided teaching Japanese to their children to make sure that they (mothers) could live as they wished. The focus of their lives differed, but they all tried to control their own life. This determination came from their own experience of being brought up in Japan as a child (Fumi Findlay, Ikuko Inwood), or an extreme situation of ‘survival’ in the UK (Wakako Waring). The most influential factor was thus parental — especially mothers’ — aspirations. Both mothers and fathers appeared to look at their childrens’

 

Getting on

development in a similar way to other majority (English) language speaking parents. There was no creation of social networks by mothers to ensure greater Japanese exposure, and their children lived in an English-dominated social world. This suited the mothers. They were positively aiming to adapt to UK society, and their exclusive use of English created little social conflict. Let us look at the three cases briefly. Although a decision was made at the beginning, and basically did not change, Fumi Findlay’s actual language use was not as decisive as her intention was. She had a good Japanese network from her work, and she was once influenced by a mother who was very enthusiastic about teaching Japanese to her children and strongly recommended Fumi to try Japanese. Fumi then used both English and Japanese, but she was working full-time, and an English speaking childminder was taking care of her baby during the day. She felt that speaking Japanese was ‘unnatural’ in two senses. First, they lived close to her husband’s parents, and her mother-in-law was a major source of support for her. She felt uneasy about using Japanese in front of her. She was an outgoing person and had a lot of other English friends as well. Second, when she came back from work, she felt it was unnatural for her child to change from English to Japanese, and she herself wanted to use English because she used Japanese during the day at work. As a result, her use of Japanese faded away. She was happy about this, but her husband was disappointed. Recently they had tried to talk with the children in Japanese, but found it impossible to have a parent teaching them. The focus at the time of the interviews was on the childrens’ education, as their eldest daughter approached the ‘difficult years.’ The Inwoods decided to use only English because they thought bringing up children properly, rather than bilingually, was their most important job. They had a clear idea about the kind of childrearing they wanted, and their childrearing was very much a joint effort. We try to talk about things, to do things naturally together… I think it’s important to sit down and to have a meal together, just to sit and talk. (Mr Inwood)

In addition: Ikuko had rather difficult childhood. She made definite resolution, and decided that she would do it differently. She analysed it and made the effort. (Mr Inwood)

To establish a non-domineering relationship with her children, Ikuko Inwood felt she should avoid using Japanese with them. They lived in a rural area with





Invisible work

few Japanese friends. They made trips to Japan every four to five years, and for the last visit (when the children were 9 and 7 years old) their older child studied some Japanese. Both parents were devoted to family life, and Ikuko reported having no difficulties in raising children in her second language. In fact: I am also learning from my children. (Mrs Inwood)

This was in contrast to her relationship with her own mother, which continued to be difficult, as mentioned briefly in Chapter 5. It was clear to Wakako Waring that her partner (later her husband) was not going to be involved in childrearing very much, and she had to accept that it was going to be her job. In which case: Who was going to teach my son English? (Mrs Waring)

When her son was three she considered going back to Japan with him alone, but legal difficulties and possible stigma for the child made her accept the idea of living in the UK permanently. She realised that she needed better English herself or she would ‘end (her) days as a cleaner.’ She studied for an English qualification, and found a stable job, where she had been working for more than ten years. Her first priority — ‘survival’ of her and her child, as she put it — meant that using Japanese was not a realistic choice. In addition to working to survive, she took pride in her former life ‘as an adult’ in Japan, working as a nutritionist at a hospital. She wanted to succeed in her new life in the UK as well. If she had used Japanese: My drive to learn English would have diminished.

For different reasons, these families decided to use English, but they all shared some apprehension of problems they might have encountered had they chosen to use Japanese.

Conclusions This chapter has given an overview of language use in the 28 families during four periods; when the first child was approximately 0–2, 3–4, 4–6 and 9–11 respectively. In half the families, there was a change towards greater use of English during one of these periods, and as some of the children were still young at the time of the interviews, there may well be further changes in this direction. The changes happened when either of two factors in the initial deci-

 

Getting on

sion — communicative needs and old hearth ties — were absent, and the trigger was a combination of the four intervening conditions described in Chapter 5–parental values, immediate social context, situational context and socio-historical context. Mothers who did not make a decisive initial decision were particularly likely to change. Specifically, some mothers felt during the first period that creating a social network to support Japanese language use was manipulative or artificial, but without this network, it was difficult to sustain Japanese use in the long-term. Some felt awkward speaking Japanese to their child in front of English speakers, particularly if those people were an important source of support. Some collected negative information about minority language use which made them even more cautious. And some were so busy and tired that they were not able to think decisively about language use. Fathers attempted to help in various ways, including trying to learn Japanese with their children, but many were faced with increasing demands from work, which created a clear division of labour and reinforced a gap in perceptions, particularly related to how ‘naturally’ Japanese could be learnt by their child. In some cases, too, a perception gap was maintained by a communication gap, as couples were still trying to establish communication between themselves. Language became a sensitive topic. In the second and third periods (3–4, 4–5), new anxieties emerged, which led to further modifications in language use. As their children began going to play groups or nurseries, mothers started to worry about their child’s English language ability, and whether or not their use of Japanese was causing a delay. Some of these anxieties might have been overcome naturally if the school age was higher, but with formal education looming at four years old, and an increasing emphasis on early literacy, mothers of younger children (who were more inclined to speak Japanese with their child) worried about whether their children would start behind the other children academically, whether they would be at a disadvantage in social interaction, and whether either or both of these would damage the confidence of their child. In addition, the introduction of English reading and writing led Japanesespeaking mothers to consider Japanese literacy skills. If they did not introduce these, they faced the prospect of a growing gap between English and Japanese proficiency, which might undermine their intention to raise their child bilingually. On the other hand, if they introduced Japanese reading and writing, they feared that they might overburden their child. These were serious dilemmas for the Japanese speaking mothers, and a number decided in this or the next period not to proceed with Japanese reading and writing, but to try to





Invisible work

maintain daily conversation. This was not always easy. As their children spent more time in school and interacting with English speaking friends after school, some mothers found they had to engage in constant ‘reminding’ work to ensure that their children spoke in Japanese, and this was both tiring and stressful for them. They had to ask themselves to what extent they were prepared to do this, and whether reminding would lead to other problems in the home. Two mothers (Junko Jeffries, Sumie Sharpe) switched from English use to Japanese two to three years into childrearing. Although they spoke English at the beginning, it was not the result of a firm decision. They had their first child soon after arriving in the UK, and may have been trying to over-assimilate, and they did not have much time to gather information about using Japanese. Both subsequently realised how important using Japanese was for them, and after their ‘swing-over’, they became determined users of Japanese. On the other hand three mothers who started out using English continued to use it, particularly as a result of their aspirations (as discussed in Chapter 5), and situational factors which made English-speaking social networks important for them. This chapter has drawn attention to dynamics in language use and change, which were closely related to the families’ childrearing and educational experiences. The following three chapters look at these more closely, focusing on childrearing in the first and early second periods, education in the late second and third periods, and ethnicity, identity and culture in the fourth period and beyond.

Notes . As has been noted by Constantinidou, 1994; McDonald, 1987, and others, mothers are sensitive about the presence of a third party not speaking their language. . Emi Emerson was reassured by her health visitor that her daughter’s language development was not a cause for concern. When she was nine, however, she was diagnosed as having moderate learning difficulties. Mrs Emerson reflected that the health visitor was probably comparing her daughter’s English development with that of the Japanese children of shortterm residents, rather than non-Japanese bilinguals in the area, and hence the language delay was masked. . In Japan, children do not begin primary school until the April after their sixth birthday, although many children learn to read and write at kindergarten to some extent in the year before. . This is not an easy task; Hsui (1996) reports that even in bilingual schools in Singapore, students do not read widely in the second school language. The students are bilingual, but not biliterate.

 

Getting on

. It had become a ‘project’ now, which included careful time management and teaching of literacy skills, and not simply use of verbal Japanese. . There were not many families with older children, it should be noted.



 

Childrearing

Introduction Chapters 5 and 6 showed that language decisions and use were important but complex issues for the 28 Japanese-British intermarried families, as they were closely intertwined with matters relating to childrearing and education, for instance. This chapter looks more closely at childrearing during the first and early second periods (first child’s age approx. 0–3 years). Childrearing and language use in these periods are integrally related, in two senses. First, raising children is carried out through the medium of language, which is used in all aspects of life with children. Second, through childrearing childrens’ linguistic competence has to be fostered in preparation for future formal learning and social functioning. This is often taken for granted in monolingual families, but becomes more visible with the dilemmas which arise in bilingual-child rearing. Childrearing arrangements have a profound impact on language use, and to some extent the reverse applies as well. This chapter aims to show how. First I will discuss in a very general sense the division of labour within the families regarding childrearing, how it evolved, language responsibilities, and the consequences. Next, I will look at what I shall call ‘pro-activist’ mothering, and social pressures which intensify the tendency on the one hand, and language arrangements which intensify it on the other. I will then look at the consequences of these childrearing arrangements, and how mothers attempted to cope with them. Finally, I will look at intervening factors, particularly sources of support. I will include three cases studies to show the significance of support arrangements. The focus is primarily on families with younger children at the time of the interviews who were in the midst of, or who had recently passed through, this period of childrearing. At the end of each section, however, a comparison with the families with older children will be given. Again, my objective is not to produce a list of factors which might promote



Invisible work

or impede bilingual-child rearing, which might be used as a check list to advise mothers. Rather, I am seeking to describe some of the dynamics of childrearing in Japanese-British intermarried families, with language as a focus or prism.

.

Division of Labour

. Evolution of division of labour The division of labour between work and home tasks, and among home tasks, has profound long-term implications for parents’ experience of bringing up children, and language use. It is the result of a number of factors, some of them structurally related to intermarriage, particularly where the mother is living in her partner’s country.

Childrearing in a foreign country Intermarried mothers living in their partner’s country have anxieties on top of or in addition to those a first time mother might normally face:  ’   , I can’t understand the whole picture — what is really important and what is not, and so on. That frightens me. (Mrs Andrews)

These anxieties are a mixture of not knowing or being able to imagine how childbirth and raising children is done in a foreign country, and the absence of their original family’s support. The mothers in this study tended to develop childrearing social networks after their first child was born, and hence they lacked certain prior information. Faced with this situation, many said that they wanted to be well prepared, and to be able to concentrate on their new task. Those who were working in the UK (Mrs Jeffries, Kerr, Ericson, Farrell) stopped to concentrate on the coming task. Others who were still in the process of getting used to the life in the UK after marriage concentrated on the coming birth, rather than trying to find a job, which would have been an overwhelming additional task. It’s not that I dislike it (childrearing), but really I’m not the most efficient person, so I felt that I really had to concentrate on it. (Mrs Emerson)

Occupational/job-related difficulties Maintaining employment during pregnancy, childbirth and subsequent early

 

Childrearing

childrearing is difficult for mothers, even in their home country. The mothers in this study faced extra difficulties. Qualifications and experience in Japan were not recognised equally in the UK, or their English was not advanced enough to gain an equivalent job. Work, therefore, was likely to mean lowerpaid or insecure work, and for those mothers thinking about work, the rewards for having a job did not match the costs to the family and to themselves. This was an extra factor in the decision of most to stay at home.1 Working while children are still young… It’s OK if your work is worth it. I wanted to see my child growing day by day myself… Even if I had tried to work, it wouldn’t have been the kind of work worth missing the time with the baby for. (Mrs Manni)

Language responsibility The choice of Japanese by many of the mothers may well have intensified the division of breadwinner — home maker roles. Children might be able to learn a language ‘naturally’ if they are in the right environment, but providing the right environment may not happen naturally, particularly when it comes to minority languages. The mothers who decided to raise their children with Japanese had to create this environment, which was both time and energy-consuming, even if there were a lot of Japanese people living in the vicinity. Some tried to hire Japanese-speaking nannies, but this was difficult, as young Japanese women generally come to the UK to improve their English, not to become a Japanese-speaking nanny. Thus the responsibility fell on the mothers themselves, and as was suggested in Chapter 6, this may have had a subtle effect of discouraging greater participation by the fathers. ‘It has to be now’ Although few mothers had read books about bilingual-child rearing prior to having their child, they somehow knew that they should start ‘it’ — fostering the minority (Japanese) language — from the very beginning. As we shall see in the next section, this message is conveyed emphatically in a major Japanese language teaching system available internationally (Kumon Method). Starting from Day 1 was perhaps an additional factor for the mothers deciding to stay at home with the child. Kumon said starting right from the beginning was important, because Japanese is a difficult language. (Emi Emerson)





Invisible work

Husband’s job The fathers, by contrast, in their home country, did not have job-related handicaps. They were capable of being breadwinners, and many were establishing careers, which made them very busy. Combined with relatively poor job prospects for the mothers, this further increased the costs of an alternative division of labour. Conversely, the fact that their partner was at home full time reduced the costs of a breadwinner — homemaker division of labour. This arrangement did not preclude husbands from taking an active role in some home tasks or childrearing. While some were more active in this respect (e.g. Mr Jeffries, Inwood, Cook, Ericson, Farrell), however, others were not, or became less active. The determination of some mothers to use Japanese only with their children might have discouraged some fathers (or encouraged some not to become involved). We saw in Chapter 6, for instance, how Matthew Moss intended to look after the children for the day, but brought them back after half an hour because he did not understand them, and this discouraged him from trying. Indeed, the birth of the first child often coincided with one of the most demanding times at work for husbands, although they remained busy thereafter. On weekdays many did not get back home before the children went to bed, and they often went to work during the weekends (Anthony Andrews, Eric Emerson). Eric Emerson expressed his concern about this, but was resigned: Her contribution is much bigger than mine. The situation is…that’s the way the situation is, because I’m working those times. It’s not intentional, it’s … if you like … an accident of life… It evolved. It sometimes puts a big burden on Emi, but that’s life… (Mr Emerson)

This by and large represents many (younger) husbands’ perceptions of the situation. Although not always career-oriented, most seemed to gain satisfaction from their work. The wives generally accepted the situation, since it was not practical to consider themselves a substantial breadwinner. Even if they could find a reasonable job, they were not sure that this would constitute grounds from which to demand a greater contribution from their husband in childrearing work. Some did, however, express dissatisfaction: I know the reason I cannot enjoy bringing up children. It’s because of my husband. You can’t enjoy it if no-one else is enjoying watching the children growing up together. In Japan when I go back, my mother says how much my son is growing up all the time and says his bad behaviour is just because he’s a boy. My father pops him up on the back of the bicycle and takes him to the river for fishing, but here… (Mrs Andrews)

 

Childrearing

This situation is characteristic of intermarried families which tend to live where the husband can find a suitable job (Cottrell, 1990; Imamura, 1988). In brief, a number of factors influenced or intensified the formation of a clear breadwinner — home-maker division of labour in these (younger) Japanese-British intermarried families, which led to mothers taking care of most of the house and childrearing tasks. Some were inherent in the intermarriage situation — childrearing in a foreign country, occupation-related difficulties for mothers, no such problems for fathers — but there were also subtle influences from the language decision, and pressures perceived by the mothers to create an environment for nurturing Japanese as soon as possible. The consequences of a clear division of labour included growing differences in perceptions of the child’s development and needs, which created difficulties for both parents when they faced or perceived problems in childrearing and language development, as we shall see at various points in Chapters 7–9. . Differences between older and younger families There were a number of differences between the older and younger families, particularly related to the age of the mothers. The majority of younger mothers2 expressed the opinion that parents (oya in Japanese, but from the context it was clear that they were referring to themselves) should be responsible for taking care of the children when they were small. Some expressed the desire to work afterwards, but as parents, their primary responsibility while the children were small was taking care of them. Only one (Asayo Avery, aged 43) rejected this viewpoint, and attempted to combine full-time work with childrearing, while another (Sumie Sharpe, aged 38) went to work to overcome feelings of isolation, and to gain her own space after her mother-in-law moved in. Only five out of seventeen mothers under 45 years old at the time of the interviews undertook paid work at any time during the early childrearing years. The older mothers (aged over 45), by contrast, did not express the view that their primary responsibility was to take care of their children when they were small. When asked specifically about this, some replied that they had not considered it (Mrs Thompson, Cook, Welsh, Sorensen), while others rejected the validity of the idea (Mrs Findlay, Inwood). A greater proportion worked (seven out of eleven) during the early childrearing years. Two were single mothers at the time, and had to work, but the others thought it was natural to keep on working. One reason for this was probably that their own mothers had done so.3





Invisible work

Their partners’ situations reinforced these tendencies. In general, the husbands of the younger mothers had high incomes, and many were career-oriented (both subjectively judged by me; there were exceptions). This mitigated against their wife working in three ways; (1) there was no financial need; (2) the disparity in income or income potential made it seem nonsensical to many mothers to go out and work; and (3) their husband was busy, making it more difficult for them to contemplate work. On the other hand, the husbands of the older mothers, as a tendency, had lower incomes, and were less career-oriented (again subjectively judged by me). They seemed to be more family-oriented, and more willing and able to help out around the house, and participate in childrearing.4 Their lower income also made it more attractive for their wife to work, although the tendency for their wife to work did not correspond with their income levels in a simple way. Some mothers worked out of financial necessity, others worked because they thought it was natural. They were not really career-oriented, however, and income disparities did not act as a discouragement to work.

. The road to ‘pro-activist’ mothering . Creating the ‘pro-activist’ mother I have coined the term ‘pro-activist’ to describe a tendency in younger mothers which combines a ‘child first’ approach to childrearing with an ‘it has to be now’ or ‘the earlier the better’ approach to the minority language in such a way that it came to define how they viewed mothering.5 All mothers are proactive to some degree in their mothering, attempting to anticipate their childrens’ needs and create what they perceive as a suitable environment for them. The ‘ist’, therefore, represents a difference in degree, but is also distinctive in the intensity of mothering it represents. My objective is not to measure pro-activist mothering, but to try to show how it came about, and the consequences of it. The tendency appeared to derive from the following factors. First, by becoming devoted (housewife) mothers as a consequence of their marriage and decision to raise children bilingually, the (mostly younger) mothers tended to see their primary role as caring for young children. In this role, they were more exposed — and receptive — than working mothers to information encouraging greater maternal involvement in all aspects of child development. Second, advice from bilingualism studies (such as Arnberg, 1987; Harding and Riley, 1986; Baker, 1995; Shichida, 1995) emphasises the importance of

 

Childrearing

starting early. Although many of the mothers had not read such books, they had heard the message. The question then became exactly what to do and how to do it. They started to seek information. As mothers attempting to raise their children bilingually, they naturally became information seekers and early active educationalists for their child. Third, the main source of information available to them was Kumon Method, an early education organisation for Japanese reading and writing, as well as maths, which operates world-wide. It is the only formal support organisation for fostering Japanese language among young children abroad, and many mothers were exposed to Kumon Method principles, including ‘the earlier, the better’, or as it says on flash card covers and other materials, ‘from age 0’ (Kumon, 1986a; 1986b). As a result of these combined factors, some mothers started to feel quite pressed by the need to actively work on their child’s language: I thought every minute Masumi was awake, it was time for more Japanese input, and I should make the most of it. The Kumon book says that when children are young their memory is so good, so everyday effort is important. I didn’t do anything for myself. I felt I should be doing something for Masumi when she was awake. I felt responsibility , or … obligation. (Mrs Emerson)

‘Inputting’ of the minority language had to be done at a very young age, prior to establishing the majority language (Mrs Emerson, Moss, Corby, Nichols, Rankin, Manni, Avery). This was often understood by mothers as extensive, even exclusive exposure to Japanese from the beginning. Information was collected which reinforced these beliefs, such as a problem story about a mother who raised her children in her second language (Ritsuko Rankin), advice from a university friend who majored in psychology (Masayo Moss), and books on early education published by Kumon Method (Kimi Kirkland, Emi Emerson). Fourth, although the mothers assumed that what they were doing — raising their child bilingually — was not actually harmful to their child’s development, they still felt they were doing something very different to them, hence they needed to monitor their development and social adjustment carefully. This inevitably made them prone to comparison, and sensitive to outside influences in general. Finally, the fact that they were bringing up children in a foreign country reinforced this tendency. Uncertainty about the way things were done in the UK meant they had to collect information, compare and evaluate what they were doing against what other mothers were doing. It would be easy to attribute this tendency to culture or ethnicity, but there





Invisible work

were differences between older and younger mothers, despite their common ethnic background. In addition, many of the younger mothers believed that had they been in Japan, in their established social network of friends and family, things would have been different: (TO) If you were in Japan, would it have been different? If I had stayed in Japan I wouldn’t have stopped working, and would probably have focused on working while I brought up my children. (Mrs Nichols) If it were in Japan, I would have been a working mother developing my career. I might have even neglected my children a little. (Mrs Rankin) Because I was living in a foreign country, my world was comprised of just two of us — me and my only daughter. If it were in Japan, it would have been totally different. I would have done it like my mother — not spending much time and energy on children, and letting them do what they wanted to do… There would have been relatives and friends, but in a foreign country, it’s like my child became the pillar (emotionally) in this isolated environment. (Mrs Sorensen)

Whether things would have been so dramatically different in Japan, we cannot know, of course. But the views run counter to common stereotypes of Japanese women and their enthusiasm for the education of their children. Here, there were important situational (or ‘structural’) factors as a result of them living abroad, and deciding to raise their children bilingually, which led not only to them staying at home full time, but also to them becoming ‘pro-activist’ mothers. While some mothers experienced no real problem with the situation, others experienced real difficulties and stresses, which created problems in this early period, as well as in later periods (see Chapters 8, 9). . Differences between older and younger mothers The concept of ‘pro-activist’ mothers emerged from certain contrasts between the younger and older mothers. Younger mothers were more likely to say they felt they should stay at home to raise their children themselves. It was not a matter of husbands asking or telling them to do so, but something they felt. Although older mothers were less likely to articulate this feeling, some did stay at home as well. But even those who stayed at home appeared to be less ‘proactivist’ in the sense described above. Perhaps this was related in part to the different backgrounds of their own mothers. Nine out of eleven of the older mothers’ mothers worked outside the home, but only six out of seventeen of the younger mothers. The older moth-

 

Childrearing

ers’ mothers worked mostly to support their family, as the majority of families in Japan were not well off at that time. Only two of the older mothers’ mothers but eleven of the younger mothers’ mothers stayed at home. Of these mothers, there were two types as well — those who were relaxed (about raising their children), and those who were inclined towards being pro-activist. From the accounts of the mothers, this description could be applied to four of the eleven younger mothers’ mothers who stayed at home, and one of the older mothers’ mothers.6 This suggests that although there were differences in their family circumstances, and the period in which they were raised in Japan, these were not decisive in nudging younger mothers towards pro-activist mothering. More decisive, perhaps, was the differences in exposure, when they had their own children, to information telling them what they should be doing for their children and how they should be doing it, both generally, and in terms of bilingual-child rearing. It was striking how often younger mothers mentioned reading or hearing information (mostly from Kumon Method materials directly, or indirectly from others who had read or heard about them) telling them that it was important to start from ‘Day 1’, and to establish the minority language first, while older mothers did not mention this, and when asked, were unable to recall it. They were not such determined Japanese speakers in the first place, they did not have the same information, and they appeared to see childrearing as one facet of their lives.

. Some consequences . Parental divide The division of labour and tendency towards pro-activist mothering had a number of consequences for the younger families. One has already been mentioned; the division of labour made it harder to get the fathers’ help, and it caused growing differences in perceptions of children’s needs. Some mothers felt there was no-one to help them if things went wrong, including their husband. This intensified concern for their child. There was an element of compensation in this as well: TO: Did your style of childrearing (doing a lot for the daughter) form naturally? I think it has something to do with living in a foreign country. When I wasn’t working and had no friends, I only had Maya (daughter). If I were so close to my husband, it would have been great (L). But he is a ‘foreigner’ and there are





Invisible work

some things that, well, no matter how close you are, no matter how much you explain, he can’t understand… With Maya, when I brought her up in a Japanese way we developed this tacit understanding… It’s like she became the emotional support. (Mrs Sorensen)

. English delay The division of labour prompted some mothers to use Japanese, and conversely, mother’s use of Japanese may have intensified the division of labour. Ironically, as we saw in Chapter 6, mothers who decided to use Japanese also felt concerned about their child’s English development, often without the active support of the father. Some were made to feel personally responsible for their child’s limited English. Masayo Moss, whose son did not speak much English before the age of four, was repeatedly reprimanded by her elderly neighbours (in a predominantly white neighbourhood): They said; ‘Why don’t you teach him English. Look, he’s not bilingual. He can’t speak English.’ (Mrs Moss)

Because of the limited involvement of fathers, and their more relaxed attitude (generally deriving from their view of language acquisition as a ‘natural’ process), where there was a perceived language delay mothers had to cope with both Japanese (where the message was ‘the more the better’ and ‘the earlier the better’ and ‘don’t mix language use’) and English (where their fluency was not perfect). Some of the language tasks were left undone: Because of the nature of my work, I don’t have enough time with the children as I would like to have. I’m out in the evenings, sometimes three or four times a week. Unfortunately, as far as my daughter is concerned, she has suffered, or is suffering from a lack of good English input. She suffers at school now from this. Her English is not so good. (Mr Emerson, whose daughter was ten, and diagnosed as having moderate learning difficulties)

. Stress Not all instances of perceived language delay can be attributed to undone language tasks, but the demands of segregated housework and childrearing, and conflicting language demands, created stresses on some mothers which may well have been a factor. Aki Andrews felt so unstable and insecure that it influenced her interaction with her five year old son. She believed his language delay (he did not speak much in either language until he was four years old) was part-

 

Childrearing

ly because of this undesirable interaction, which persisted for a long time. Mrs Emerson, too, recalled the extreme stresses in her early childrearing days, caused by her caesarean section, lack of support, and strong feeling of isolation. She felt that this might have contributed to her daughter’s later adaptation problems. A number of mothers, in other words, felt considerable stress in this period, which effected their family relations. Sometimes the effects were traumatic, in other cases they were more subtle, intensifying, for instance, the pro-activist tendency. In Emi Emerson’s case: I felt I had to do it. I felt if I didn’t, she wouldn’t absorb anything. There was this pressure. I think she didn’t really have time to relax, either. Things were a bit different with Matthew. I didn’t push him so much, but he absorbed a lot. I guess I had become a bit wiser by then, not just in language, but I think I was excessive in other areas as well. But then, we use language for all our activities, don’t we? (Mrs Emerson)

They attempted to cope with these stresses in various ways, one of which was ‘breaking free’. . Breaking free ‘Breaking free’ meant abandoning or substantially reducing Japanese (e.g. saying only familiar things in Japanese), and switching to English, for which the mothers criticised themselves: I was lazy. (Atsuko Appleby) I felt understanding Japanese a lot at this stage (age two) wouldn’t be a great benefit in the future… I’m lazy. (Mrs Harrison)

(The implication of such statements, also repeated by Tae Thompson when describing how she had later switched to English, is that nurturing Japanese was a job, or work, hence if one was lazy, it did not get done.) Some mothers (Mrs Harrison, Findlay, Waring) recognised from the beginning the potential conflict of the approach with other aspirations such as work and relationships with their husband, and consequently abandoned the idea of raising their children bilingually. One (Etsuko Ericson) started to question her deepening proactivist childrearing and resisted it. This again meant abandoning the idea of raising children bilingually: There was a period when I became immersed, reading childrearing books, and feeling I should be doing this and that… just after she was born. I was overprotecting her. And then I doubted if it was really necessary. (Mrs Ericson)





Invisible work

Etsuko Ericson changed her approach towards childrearing — doing many things for the baby — and that became part of the reason for her dropping Japanese language use altogether. Hisako Harrison did not want to become ‘a mother without her own wishes’: I never saw my mother doing something for herself. It was always for the children, or for the family. She had sort of given up on her own life because of my father’s domineering attitude. I didn’t like it. I didn’t like her saying to me ‘It’s OK if you are happy’. (Mrs Harrison)

She sent her child to a nursery before she turned one, and let Japanese phase out ‘naturally’. Tae Thompson, who had lived in the UK for 20 years at the time of the interviews, remarked: Observing other Japanese-non Japanese intermarried families, I think there are two different types. One is where mothers are centred around the children, and the other is where they are centred around their own life. I can’t understand why they (the former) do it that much.

She linked the tendencies with language use: Looking at some of the mothers who teach Japanese to their children, I think their life is so child-centred. The children are far more important than the husband. The husbands are isolated. I know a couple who divorced because of that. They are just like Japanese ‘education mamas’ transplanted to the UK. (Mrs Thompson)

Observing the connection between teaching Japanese to children and being a pro-activist mother supported her move towards English. Even if she wanted her children to speak Japanese, she would not teach them because it conflicted strongly with other principles in her life — she should not live in a child-first way, and she should not jeopardise her relationship with her husband. Hisako Harrison likewise emphasised the importance of the relationship with her husband, and abandoned her use of Japanese, as did Emi Ericson: I want our family to be able to laugh and cry in one language. (Mrs Ericson)

Atsuko Appleby, too, was not simply ‘lazy’ as cited above: I respect my parents. Their principle was never to force things onto others, even their children. We felt that very strongly in my family. Maybe I am like my father. (Mrs Appleby)

What these mothers resisted was not the idea of transmitting their language to their children, but the idea — and reality — of being an ‘pro-activist’ mother. As a

 

Childrearing

consequence, however, they either decreased or abandoned their use of Japanese. Fathers, again, viewed things rather differently. Some (Mr Farrell, Corby, Emerson, Jeffries, Nichols) talked about childrearing in recent years becoming more demanding, and strongly questioned that tendency. But they saw no contradiction between ‘natural’ childrearing on the one hand, and the idea that their children could learn Japanese on the other. This was because they thought children would learn Japanese naturally, which was true to some extent at this stage. However, they did face conflict when it later became apparent that their children did not learn Japanese as a minority language naturally, as we shall see in Chapter8. . Support Stress was not simply a product of the division of labour, the pro-activist tendency and the consequences of both. Nor was it addressed simply by mothers’ individual adaptive responses. A number of factors intervened to intensify the stress, or to reduce it. These included where the family lived, the health of the mother and child and the child’s temperament, and critically, sources of support. Let us look at each of these in turn. . Socio-geographic location of the family Some families lived in areas where certain types of support were not easily available, such as rural villages where there were almost no Japanese people, and hence no means of obtaining support from a Japanese network. Mothers in this situation often felt helpless in persisting with the Japanese language, although this was not always decisive. Mrs Sorensen felt she lived in a total isolation from both the local and Japanese network, but this led her to try to create her own world with her daughter, in which she exclusively used Japanese. Mrs Andrews, on the other hand, lived in a metropolitan area near a large Japanese community, but because of ill-health after her son’s birth, and his very demanding nature, she was not mobile enough to actually interact with other Japanese people. In addition, her son was born soon after she arrived in the UK, so she did not have time to establish a Japanese network beforehand. . Mother’s and child’s health, and child’s temperament Health and temperament figured prominently in mothers’ accounts of childrearing. Demanding babies (not sleeping well, crying frequently, or with





Invisible work

health problems) caused considerable stress. Mothers in this situation devoted all their energy to dealing with everyday practicalities, and had little left over to devote to arranging an environment for Japanese. Having a difficult child also meant that the mother had ‘proving work’ to do (Mrs Farrell, Andrews, Moss); proving that the difficulties were not the result of them (mothers) being Japanese, or using Japanese. They felt many eyes on them when their child had a tantrum in the supermarket: You have to show that you are telling the child off, doing it properly, and not ignoring what you should be doing as a parent. You have to let those people listen, and you can’t do it in Japanese. (Mrs Farrell)

. Support Again, however, these factors by themselves did not appear to be decisive. A lot depended on the types and sources of support for childrearing. These were critical to how mothers managed the stresses in this period, and whether they saw childrearing as relatively straightforward, or extremely problematic. In describing their early childrearing experiences, the mothers referred to five main types of support: – – – – –

husband family in the UK family in Japan Japanese social network British social network

In some cases support was present, in other cases it was actively sought, and in yet others it was unavailable, often as a consequence of life preceding childrearing (e.g. lack of support from Japan). Support could have both positive and negative effects. When mothers had practical support from their mother-inlaw, for instance, but felt that it was without respect for their own wishes or ways of doing things, it was perceived as being intrusive. (Several cases of delicate relations with mothers-in-law were mentioned in Chapter 6. Other mothers also mentioned these, including Hisako Harrison and Ritsuko Rankin.) From the 28 families, the key characteristics of the five sources of support were as follows: 1. husband: the husband was the most effective source of support. 2. family in Japan: support was emotional rather than practical, and it sometimes distracted mothers from adaptation to the UK. Conversely, poor rela-

 

Childrearing

tionships encouraged mothers to adapt to the UK. 3. family in UK: beneficial where relations were good, especially when the family lived close by. However, depending on the relationship, it also worked negatively when it came to the language project. 4. Japanese network: positive and effective support, but without other balancing support it encouraged excessive pro-activist tendencies. 5. British network: mothers needed to feel stable and confident in the UK, raising their children and preparing them for UK schooling. Important for gaining a balance, but difficult to obtain if mothers were too Japan-oriented. The sources of support, their characteristics and effects, are shown in Table 7–1. Concrete examples of three families are given below. Table 7.1 Sources of support for mothers and their effects source of support

description

positive effects when present

negative effects when present

when absent

husband

Support from husband as perceived by the wife varied from exclusively emotional to considerable practical help. Vital because it could compensate most for the lack of other support if provided effectively.

Helped the wife emotionally and practically to cope with tasks. Also helped to compensate for other types of support which were not available.

None, except sometimes worked negatively for Japanese speaking (Ericson)

Possibility of husband becoming segregated from mother-child relationship, and hence isolated. When childrearing was perceived as relatively easy, such as with an only or easy child, it did not necessarily appear important, but when the mother had difficulties, the absence of the husband’s support had profound effects.

family in Japan

Tended to be emotional rather than practical because of the geographic distance.

If this co-exited with other types of support, it became a vital element in the continuation of Japanese use.

If this existed exclusively, it hindered the wife’s adaptation to the life in the UK. The wife felt more empowered when she identified with Japan (family of origin).

Since this source only provided emotional help, there was not much difference in the actual work load, but absence influenced intentions to continue with Japanese use.

family in the UK

A source of both emotional and practical support, mainly from the mother-in-law.

Perceived as positive when the relationship with the person was favourable and balanced (not overwhelming, excessive or intrusive). Potential to compensate for a lack of, or to supplement, English network support.

In some circumstances (Jeffries, Nichols, Rankin, Sharpe, Appleby, Harrison) it was felt as intrusive or threatening; the wife felt she was not respected as a capable mother, and her ways were not respected as being viable.

Sometimes prompted greater involvement of fathers, sometimes intensified mother’s isolation. Mothers did not expect significant support from this source (unlike expectations of support from husbands).





Invisible work

Table 7.1 Sources of support for mothers and their effects (continued) source of support

description

positive effects when present

negative effects when present

when absent

Japanese network

This source included intermarried and short-term resident family networks. Both had a tendency also to be a network for bilingual childrearing. Kumon Method also provided a Japanese network.

Unless the mother was committed to adapting to and raising children in non-Japanese UK society, having a Japanese network was important for the mother’s emotional well-being. In modest proportions (in a balanced way), the support also became a support for Japanese language use.

Some mothers were prompted towards pro-activist childrearing, which became a source of stress and extremes. Could produce segregation of the husband.

When unavailable in spite a need, it made the mothers rely more on their English network (when available), or resulted in total isolation.

British network

Local childrearing network(s) which consisted of non-Japanese friends. Necessary for a sense of balance in the mother’s life. Often difficult to establish when the mother had limited English and felt hesitant to actively seek it. Difficult to establish when the mother had emotional difficulties in adjusting to life in the UK. If not using Japanese, the mother often ended up mainly with this type of support.

Provided practical knowledge and help. It became more important as the child approached school age by providing information on schooling.

When negative opinions were voiced about childhood bilingualism and/or the mother using Japanese, it became a source of discouragement for the language project.

Made it difficult for the mother to feel she was making progress in adapting to life in the UK, hence caused dissatisfaction and stress about her situation. When other sources of support in Britain did not exist, the mother found it difficult to get a holistic picture of childrearing, and about children’s lives in Britain.

The combination of support, and the positioning of mothers in relation to it, was critical for the mothers’ experience of early childrearing, and language use. Although it was not always easy to pin-point what made the situation easier or more difficult, certain factors appeared to be critical. One was the balance of Japanese and British sources of support. Even if the mother was determined to raise her child in Japanese, she was doing it in the UK, and without firm support from the UK — this often meant good sources of information, provided locally — it was difficult for her to feel stable and confident in bringing up her child, or confident in using Japanese with her/him. The role of her husband was crucial in this respect, including perceptions of his reliability, and his emotional and practical help. He could also become the window to relate to the outside society when the mother had difficulties in obtaining an British support network. These difficulties arose from limited

 

Childrearing

language (Mrs Andrews, Emerson, Kirkland, Sorensen), reduced mobility with a young baby (Mrs Andrews, Emerson, Rankin, Sharpe), poor health of the mother and/or the baby (Mrs Andrews, Emerson), or other psychological difficulties from living in a foreign country. The difficulties might be temporary or persistent, but for the mother it was a very demanding time, and not having an British network to provide information about how things related to the baby were done in the UK was a source of worry and stress. Availability of the husband to participate in childrearing reduced this stress. Thus the tendency of Japanese use, noted earlier, to isolate fathers, or cause them to refrain from active participation in childrearing, was potentially problematic. Mothers faced the danger of losing vital childrearing support without realising it. A further point to note about the balance of support was the potential for stress from immersion in information from Japanese sources. Two different types of mothers were an important part of the Japanese social networks; wives of Japanese businessmen staying in the UK for three to five years; and intermarried wives. The former were almost all housewives who were not legally allowed to work. They usually concentrated on looking after their family, and one important task was to establish or maintain their childrens’ Japanese in preparation for schooling upon their return to Japan. The latter consisted largely of intermarried mothers who wanted to transmit Japanese to their child. Exclusive reliance on these sources tended to accentuate pro-activeness, and increase stress. . Three cases Some concrete examples will help to demonstrate the nature of support, and its relationship with childrearing and language use (Table 7–2). On the surface, the three following families have much in common. There was a clear division of labour — husband breadwinner, wife home-maker and primary carer for the children — and the mothers all decided to speak Japanese with their children. Their older children were relatively young at the time of the interviews (5 years old for Aki Andrews and Chiaki Corby, 10 for Emi Emerson). All sent their children to a nursery part time to gain greater exposure to English and/or gain some rest for themselves. In all three cases the mothers perceived that there was a language delay (in both languages). The way that this perceived delay was dealt with, and the outcome, however, was acutely influenced by the support available to the mothers, and here their experiences were strikingly divergent. As Table 7–2 shows, Aki Andrews





Invisible work

and Emi Emerson reported difficulties and stress, but to different degrees and for different reasons. For Aki Andrews a particularly problematic child and lack of support created language problems which fed back into childrearing. For Emi Emerson, imbalanced support and the bilingual language project created stresses in childrearing, which then fed back into language. By contrast, Chiaki Corby had more balanced support, including vital support from her husband, resulting in a different approach to the perceived delay.

A Andrews Ryota Andrews was, his mother said, extremely difficult. He had colic, and often woke in the middle of the night and screamed for hours on end. Aki Andrews found this hard to deal with. Her husband suggested that she follow the advice of the health visitor and allow him to scream, reasoning that he would eventually learn there was nothing to be gained, and go back to sleep. As her husband had not helped out during the early nights, Aki interpreted this more as a lack of real concern or sense of responsibility, and felt the health visitor showed a similar lack of concern. When she took Ryota to a hospital once they had to wait for several hours, and the doctor simply gave him Calpol (a mild kind of paracetamol widely used with children). She sent him to a nursery from an early age (before he was one year old) to gain some rest for herself, but he had bad eczema, and she felt the nursery was too relaxed about nappy changing, making it worse and aggravating his temper, so she only took him for about two hours a day, despite paying full time fees. As a result of this situation, Aki Andrews became sceptical about ‘British ways’ and felt extremely isolated, while her husband criticised her for ‘Japanese way’ excesses. Her own interpretation of overprotectiveness was that it resulted from living in the UK:  ’   , I can’t understand the whole picture — what is really important and what is not, and so on. That frightens me. I feel I don’t have a choice. I developed the idea that once he gets sick, that’s the end. (Mrs Andrews)7

She recalled her elderly (English) neighbour telling her how she should be careful of stones, as they might have dangerous dog excreta on them, or to avoid the homeless, as they might have tuberculosis. She reflected: If it were in Japan, I wouldn’t have cared if he had picked up stones, but here I always say to him stop this and that, do this and that. (Mrs Andrews)

She returned to Japan repeatedly with her son for periods of three to four

 

Childrearing

months, mainly because of ill health from stress, with the result that they felt settled in neither country. This was not a stable social or linguistic environment, although Mrs Andrews used Japanese with her son throughout. There were other reasons why she did not feel settled in the UK. Her English was limited, and she had her baby soon after arriving, which meant she did not have a chance to establish an British or Japanese network beforehand. After the birth, the difficulties exhausted her, and she did not have the energy to go out. She herself became emotionally unstable, and this affected the quality of interaction with her child. Her exclusive use of Japanese did not seem to help him to acquire the language because of the tension in his daily life. She later took him to a Kumon Method class, but he did not fit in, and it did not last. The quality of Table 7.2 Support during early childrearing (mothers’ perceptions, interpreted by me) Andrews ( 2 children) source of support husband family in Japan family in UK J.ese network British network

none .................. sufficient x – x x x

child’s characteristics

difficult ............. easy x – –

– – – – –

– x – – –

Emerson (2 children) source of support husband family in Japan family in UK J.ese network British network

none .................. sufficient – – – – x

child’s characteristics

difficult ............. easy – – x

x – x – –

– x – x –

Corby (2 children) source of support husband family in Japan family in UK J.ese network British network

none .................. sufficient – – – – x

child’s characteristics

difficult ............. easy – x –

x x – x –

– – x – –





Invisible work

his English language environment was also problematic, and he did not really start speaking until he was four, and going to school.

B Emersons In contrast to Ryota Andrews, Masumi Emerson was a very easy child, but her placid nature may have masked problems of another kind. She was born prematurely and by caesarean section, and did not gain weight as quickly as the health visitor expected. Emi Emerson was worried about her first baby, and had to recover herself. In Japan you are told to spend a month to take very good care of yourself, and you get a lot of help. Here I was alone, looking at my baby, worrying, and trying to do other work around the house. It was a nightmare. (Mrs Emerson)

All this prevented her from getting out and creating a British network soon after the birth. When she did begin to go out, she was so pleased to meet a Japanese mother who was coincidentally a Kumon Method instructor. Through this person, she developed a Japanese network, which was a source of support for parenting, but at the same time strongly conveyed the idea that Japanese was a difficult language, and there has to be a concerted input right from the beginning, before English is established. This led her to focus more and more on her daughter’s Japanese language development, and she became more pro-activist in her childrearing, to an extent that at the time of the interviews she found puzzling (and I found puzzling, given her relaxed attitude). Mrs Emerson intended her daughter to learn English at nursery, but she lived in an area with many (short term) Japanese residents, and her daughter ended up speaking Japanese there most of the time. Mr Emerson was, in effect, the only English speaking person in regular contact with her, but he was busy with his work, and left home matters to his wife. He was, however, generally supportive of bilingualism, and hence tacitly encouraged his wife with her use of Japanese. His own parents had argued a lot and divorced, and he did not want to bring arguments into his own home, including arguments about excesses in bilingual-child rearing. His interaction with his daughter was limited, she spoke little English, and it remained that way. It only gradually became clear that she was having problems. How much the above factors contributed towards her English language delay is hard to say, as there may have been other reasons as well. She was diagnosed at school as having moderate learning difficulties. Her mother wondered whether her proactivist childrearing exacerbated the situation early on, making her daughter

 

Childrearing

overly passive and inhibiting her development of self confidence. Mrs Emerson was less inclined that way at the time of interview, as she worked part time, in the same area of work as her husband.

C Corbys Unlike the Andrews, who met, married and had their baby quickly, the Corbys lived together in Japan for some time, and in the UK for one year before their baby was born. Although Collin Corby had a career job, he worked regular 9:00–5:30 hours, and in Chiaki’s recollections, was around to discuss things when necessary. Moreover, his family was warm and supportive. His mother was a health visitor whose views Chiaki respected. This family background gave added credibility to his views as well. She ‘naturally’ (Chiaki Corby) decided to speak Japanese with her son, and established a Japanese network. Like the other two families, they lived in a metropolitan area with a lot of Japanese and Japanese-British intermarried families. She recalled that she often came home from meeting other Japanese mothers thinking she ‘had to do this and that’ (both language-wise, and childrearing-wise) ‘almost pathologically’, but her husband would calm her down and enable her to regain a balance. As a result, although she perceived that there was a delay in her son’s language development, there was a supportive environment in which they (especially she) agreed that the delay was not a serious problem, and would right itself in time. She continued to use Japanese exclusively, and when her son started nursery at three, he did not speak much English. That this did not cause major problems or stress was probably helped by the relaxed attitudes of the people around, especially Chiaki herself. In her view, at the time of the interviews (when he was aged five), he did not have any problems with his English. These three families show the importance of proximate and balanced support. Proximate support means more than family support, and includes the support from the community as well. This creates an easier environment for the mothers in general, and if it was the Japanese community, it might provide support for the use of Japanese language. However, the positive effects of such proximate support could be lost if it lacked balance, particularly between English and Japanese. . Socio-historic differences There were differences between the older mothers and younger mothers in terms of support available. The older mothers had much less Japanese support





Invisible work

during early childrearing. There were no Japanese newspapers, and few if any support organisations, even if the mothers had known where to look for them. By contrast, there are not only various Japanese publications available to Japanese mothers in the UK now, and support organisations such as the Nami no kai (whose members formed the core of the respondents to the survey and these interviews), but there are many more Japanese families as well. Isolation might result from personal circumstances, but Japanese support is available. The older mothers lacked a support network which could facilitate bilingual childrearing, while on the other hand, the presence of this support for the younger mothers led not to a balance, but potentially an imbalance, not simply in terms of language, but in terms of childrearing in general. This was because the nature of the network encouraged: a) pro-activist mothering, and b) a heavy emphasis on Japanese support. This could end up isolating the mothers and their children from the wider society, and to some extent from their own husbands, whose support in many ways was critical.

Conclusions Within the 28 families, there was a tendency towards a clear breadwinner — home-maker and childrearing division of labour. This tendency was intensified by the fact that the mothers were living in a foreign (to them) country, since it limited career opportunities reduced the attractiveness of pursuing full time work. In addition, the mothers felt they had to concentrate on the birth and raising their child, since there were many uncertainties in a foreign country. The fact that the mothers were at home, conversely, enabled the husbands to concentrate on their work or career. The tendency was further intensified by the choice of Japanese, which placed responsibility for language development with the mothers, who had to create an environment favourable for nurturing Japanese. So successful were some that their partner may have been discouraged from more active participation in childrearing. This had unanticipated consequences later, when the mothers felt they had to take responsibility for the English language development of their child as well. Conceptually distinct from the division of labour, but subject to many of the same influences, was the tendency towards what I have called ‘pro-activist’ (combining ‘child-first’ childrearing and ‘the earlier the better’ approach to the minority — Japanese — language) mothering. Pro-activist tendencies were

 

Childrearing

promoted by mothers being full time home makers, minority mothers, and using Japanese with their child. Such mothers became information seekers, and collected information about the need to promote their child’s Japanese development ‘from Day 1.’ Rather than the division of labour per se, it was this type of mothering which intensified stress, which some mothers tried to reduce by abandoning their use of Japanese. This stress was largely invisible to some fathers because of the division of labour, and because of their view that language acquisition comes naturally. There were differences between older and younger families in both the division of labour and pro-activist mothering, particularly related to the age of the mother. Where mothers were younger, both the tendency towards a clear division of labour, and pro-activist mothering, were stronger, and stress levels appeared higher. There were a number of intervening factors which influenced the amount of stress, however, such as socio-geographic location, mother and child’s health and child’s temperament, and networks of support which made childrearing and language work relatively unproblematic in some cases, but traumatic in others. Individual sources of support were important, but the combination was also critical in terms of creating a balance (or imbalance) between British and Japanese in terms of language and information. This balance was also critical when it came to schooling, which I shall look at next.

Notes . Section two discusses the issue of mothers working at this time, in the context of differences between older and younger mothers. . ‘Younger mothers’ here means 45 years old or younger — those born after the postwar ‘baby boom’ and during the economic recovery in Japan. . The tremendous social changes in postwar Japan were noted in Chapter 2. The proportion of women working declined steadily from the late 1950s until the early 1970s, largely as a result of declining numbers of farming families, self-employed and family businesses. An increasing proportion went to work from the 1970s, but as paid employees, and on a part time basis. The ‘M-curve’ (women working before marriage or childbirth, leaving the labour force, and then rejoining it later) continued to deepen (Japan Institute of Labour, 1986; 1997). . Husbands of younger mothers also indicated a family orientation during the interview, but often this did not appear to be accompanied by practical participation around the house. . The concept is similar to Marshall’s (1991) depiction of ‘active’, ‘interventionist’ modern mothering, in which the mother feels she must both facilitate and monitor her child’s ‘normal’ development.





Invisible work . The rise of the ‘education mother’ (kyoiku mama in Japanese) in Japan may be traced from family expenditure on education. From the mid 1970s, it rose rapidly from about 3% of disposable income to about twice that figure. As the number of children per family was declining rapidly, this meant that expenditure per child rose markedly (eg Asahi Shinbun, 3 March, 1995). The younger mothers here, however, were going through school before or at the very beginning of this steep rise, so while they were raised in a different environment from the older mothers, it was not as different as it would have been a decade later. . Other mothers, too, felt that they somehow could not grasp the ‘whole picture’ in the UK.

 

Going to school

Introduction The legacy of the early childrearing periods extended into early schooling, both in terms of achievements, and difficulties. This new period, however, brought new and distinctive challenges as well, which had a great impact on the families’ experiences during this period. The impact of these challenges show that the family and public spheres of social life are intimately connected, especially through schooling and education. This chapter attempts to shed light on this intimate connection, again through a focus on language use. In the first section, I discuss what their first child starting school meant for these families, and the legacy of the preceding (first and early second, approx. 0–3 years old) periods in this new situation. This will provide the background setting for understanding the main new feature of this period — competing demands — which is discussed in the second section . In the third section I consider a new element in the development of Japanese language which greatly intensified this competition — Japanese reading and writing. In the final section, I shall look at how the families attempted to deal with these demands, and the consequences, particularly in terms of language use. Parental values became critical in the strategies adopted. In some cases the father’s values, which were not particularly visible until this period, made a significant difference. By the time the child had settled into formal schooling and formal assessments of the child were made (approximately 2–3 years after starting school, at age 7 or 8), most families had made decisions about their child’s educational priorities, and language use. These, however, continued to be monitored, and in some cases were modified as the children progressed through school. In this chapter I refer to the mother’s continued use of Japanese as her ‘language project.’ This is because, during this period, mothers came to require extra determination, time management skills and even teaching skills in order



Invisible work

to continue their efforts to foster active bilingualism. Mothers were not simply using their preferred language and arranging a supportive environment; it had become a major and increasingly difficult project.

.

Starting school

The first point to note is that mothers brought into this new period a legacy from the previous period, which made many particularly sensitive to new circumstances for their children. They were bringing up children abroad, where they perceived they had less information about the education system and how education was delivered than they would have had in their home country. Thus they had less idea of what it would be like to go to school, and the attitude of teachers. This in itself was a source of worry, and made them sensitive to their child’s new challenges. The division of labour, however, as described in the last chapter, probably made a number of mothers feel more personally responsible than those families in which home and childrearing tasks were shared more. And because of the division of labour and related differences with their husband in perceptions over childrearing problems, they may have felt that if something happened, there would be no-one to help. This intensified caution, and the desire to prevent potential problems from arising, particularly any disadvantage which might stem from their use of Japanese. . Preventing ‘disadvantage’ Many mothers had been sensitive about their child’s language development, but until the end of the second period, when the prospects of formal schooling were real and immediate, their emphasis was on Japanese. Now, however, the emphasis of concern shifted from Japanese to English. As their child approached school, the mothers tried to assess whether their child’s English proficiency was sufficient for schooling. This was done by comparing their development with monolingual English speaking children, and by careful observation of social adjustment at pre-school institutions, and later at school. There were four inter-related areas of concern; that their child had a sound English language base for academic (literacy and numeracy) tasks, that they had a sound language base for social interaction, that they were able to start school with confidence and without feeling that in some way they were inferior to others, and that teachers did not consider them problematic or less intelli-

 

Going to school

gent than others. Monitoring their child’s overall development to avoid possible disadvantage at the beginning of school became a primary concern for the mother. Fathers shared these concerns to some extent. Until their child started attending a pre-school institution, not being able to speak English well was not considered a major disadvantage by mothers. When their child started attending, however, mothers began to be concerned about their adaptation in groups of English-speaking children. Although no mothers used the word ‘disadvantage’, from their accounts it became clear that they were afraid of, and sought to avoid, disadvantage that the child might have as a result of them speaking Japanese to their child. It was not ‘delay’ in English language development per se that worried the mothers, but the ‘disadvantage’ that a delay and/or being different might bring to their child. Reassurance from specialists that some delay was natural for bilingual children, that their child would catch up in a few years time, and that any possible disadvantage could be overcome, offered little comfort. They were worried that their child might be placed in a disadvantageous situation in the important early years because of their language project: It would be sad for the children if I strongly insisted on Japanese from my ‘ego’, because they are going to live in this country. If they can’t survive in this country, they can’t survive anywhere. (Mrs Moss)

Most mothers accepted that their children would be living in the UK for the foreseeable future, and to equip them to live in the UK successfully would be their first priority. But for some mothers like Masayo Moss, there was a need to use Japanese. (If anything happened to Matthew Moss, who was 17 years older than her, it was agreed that she and the children would return to Japan, where they would need Japanese. The same applied to the Hopes — Harry Hope served in the Army.) On the other hand, if their child had a difficulty at the beginning, or if they anticipated such a difficulty when their child started schooling, it was very difficult for the mothers’ language use not to be shaken. A delay in English, they feared, might undermine their child’s confidence in general, and lead to negative attitudes towards school and academic work, as well as negative perceptions by their child’s teacher.

Academic development I’m interested obviously because I don’t want him … the difficulty is that if you go to some school and if you start off badly, you get stuck in the bottom and you never get the attention then. I observed it in my own schooling. I was lucky that I





Invisible work

was at the top. But we were split up and no attention was given to those who got left behind. (Mr Moss, who was not involved in childrearing in earlier years) I thought if Emily was going to grow up in English education, then rather than creating a weak point by teaching Japanese and her not having confidence, it would be better for her to have good English and be confident. (Mrs Ericson)

These parents sensed what educational research has shown: that ‘Children’s talk will underpin all subsequent achievement in written language…’ (Cleave and Brown, 1991: 105). Indeed, assessment of their child would be based on and through the use of language, specifically verbal communication at first.1 Verbal communication is used in all instructions, and having insufficient English language could make their child’s life difficult at school. In this context there is a difference between teaching a child a minority language, and teaching another skill such as piano. Encouraging — or forcing — a child to practise the piano would probably not have a major impact on school life. Ability to play the piano is unlikely to have much effect on perceptions of the child’s intelligence, particularly by teachers. Not being able to follow the instructions at school because of language difficulties, on the other hand, might well have that effect (cf. Stone, 1981). Matthew Moss expressed this concern succinctly: He might be considered not intelligent. (Mr Moss)

Social adjustment Another key area of concern was their child’s social adjustment at school. Mothers who had been using Japanese exclusively had this concern, especially for boys. I thought he definitely needed to speak English before he went to school. There is bullying in Japan, but it’s different if it happens here. TO: You mean he might get bullied because of his language? Yes, and I couldn’t say anything to those children because I don’t know what to say. In Japan, if something happened, I’m strong with Japanese children. I would say ‘What are you doing to him?’ But here, even if it were three ten year olds, I would come back home without saying anything. It’s frightening. (Mrs Andrews, whose son spoke only a little of both languages until he was four.)

Masayo Moss attributed her son’s difficulties in mixing with other English children at the nursery to his lack of English language competence. She said he had no problems mixing with Japanese children, and she tried to prepare him for schooling by sending him to English lessons for half a year. It was not without misgivings that she spoke Japanese with him.

 

Going to school

If I had used English, Ken would not have such pressure in his head. And it would have been much easier for him to interact with other children. (Mrs Moss)

Concern about their child’s social adjustment, again, often led to feelings of guilt or responsibility.

Confidence building Many parents saw the start of school as a period of confidence building rather than real academic (literacy and numeracy) development, which would follow after the confidence building. They did not want their children to fall behind because it might damage their confidence, both in respect to academic tasks, and life in general. Kevin Kerr was aware of the possibility of a delay in English at school, but did not see it as detrimental in the long-term. I was prepared for my childrens’ language to be weaker when they went to school in order to build up the other language. I was prepared for that possibility. (Mr Kerr)

His wife on the other hand, who had spend a long time in the US when she was growing up and continuously felt ‘handicapped’, was not so easily reassured. Feedback from school did little to reassure her, either. Don’t you think teachers here don’t praise children? I only know Japan and the US, but they praise children of that age a lot more there. In the States, they try to find good things, even minor things, about children and praise them. In Japanese kindergarten, when Fiona went for a few weeks last summer, teachers were like that. Here I went to her kindergarten to ask how she was, and the teacher didn’t praise anything she had done. She said ‘your daughter doesn’t come when she’s called.’ She makes children learn by saying ‘now it’s work time, let’s study.’ Then she said Fiona said ‘I’m tired’. She said Fiona’s ability was OK, though. (Mrs Kerr)

Worried about her daughter’s confidence, she further decreased her use of Japanese. While this experience was not necessarily representative, communication between mothers and teachers — or lack of it, or of positive feedback — did little to ease the fears of vacillating mothers like Kana Kerr. If one of the main aims of early schooling is ‘to help each child feel confident and secure, and to help each child experience a sense of achievement’ (Bennett and Kell, 1989:6), these parents felt a discontinuity between stated aims and practice.





Invisible work

. Proving in earnest None of the mothers mentioned that they wanted their child’s English to be perfect, but until they saw that their child was reasonably well prepared for formal education, they felt that the legitimacy of their use of Japanese was in question. If something went wrong, it would be their fault, as Masayo Moss was told by a friend. It was not simply that they did not want to be blamed, but they did not want to make their child’s life unnecessarily difficult. If their child was disadvantaged because of an unavoidable accident, they might not feel personally responsible, but their wish for their child to speak Japanese was something they were bound to feel responsible for. Etsuko Ericson explained why she dropped Japanese: I felt if I overemphasised Japanese, it would be wrong. One girl (with an English father and Japanese mother) went to school and she had a hard time because she wasn’t able to speak English well. She was sort of warped. Every time she had problem at school, she said ‘That’s because I’m Japanese’, or ‘That’s because it’s English’ (implying she could speak Japanese well but not English). It seemed that was what her mother used to say at home, for example to her husband… That child didn’t choose to learn Japanese, but she ended up not being able to speak English well. It might well become a handicap if it’s pushed. I don’t want Emily to say at school ‘That’s because my mummy is Japanese.’ (Mrs Ericson)

Formal assessment This concern was intensified because their children were going to be formally assessed on their language and social readiness for formal education. This, in a sense, was the beginning of assessment of the mother’s language project, which continued until they knew how their children were actually assessed in reading and writing at school. Thus, according to Sumie Sharpe, who spoke Japanese exclusively to her son: When my first child was around six years old, I felt he was going to be OK. TO: Why when he was six years old? … That was when it became clear that he didn’t have any problem in reading … no problem in English.

Those mothers who had already stopped using Japanese had already anticipated this concern, and in part their decision was made to avoid it. One or two mothers were conscious that the formal assessment — the Key Stage One of SATs (standard assessment tests/tasks) at age seven, and the associated school

 

Going to school

League Tables — increased the conditionality of their Japanese language use. Kimi Kirkland’s son had done SATs: Japanese people who come here are often surprised and say they thought schools in the UK were more relaxed, but it’s different. Last year (at the local state school, in a multicultural, middle class area) there were a few level 3 (above national average) pupils, but this year, the number has risen a lot. The difference is amazing. They must have tried really hard. The head mistress warned not to criticise children if they brought back bad results, but parents are getting more serious because of this Table. 2

She added: If Andrew wasn’t performing well the teachers would ask; ‘What language are you speaking?’ Then, ‘Since your son is not doing very well in English, why don’t you concentrate on English? Then it might improve.’ (Kimi Kirkland)

In this direct sense, therefore, she felt that the school’s acceptance of bilingualism was conditional, which meant that the legitimacy of her use of Japanese was conditional.

Parental involvement — a critical period These concerns were intensified by the knowledge that the early years of schooling are critical for later success. Some mothers (Mrs Avery, Kirkland, Sharpe) believed — and experienced — that care taken in this period would reap a much greater dividend than care taken later on in schooling. Kimi Kirkland put a lot of effort into helping her son learn to read and write English during this period — ‘pulling him by the ear’ as she put it — and he made more visible progress than the daughter of her linguist sister-in-law, who earlier appeared to develop much faster in speaking. She felt partially vindicated in her use of Japanese language, both to herself, and to her wider family, for the first time: I thought if my son made a good start, he would gain confidence and could go further by himself. It would become his driving force. I felt it was worth trying hard for one year. (Mrs Kirkland. Mrs Avery expressed a similar view.)

. ‘Too early’ On the other hand, although few parents questioned the notion of starting school at age four, the accounts of some did point to difficulties resulting from demands placed upon their children at this early age (see below. Technically, younger parents did not need to place their children in a reception class at age





Invisible work

four. All of them did, however. Not to do so would have been doing something very different, in the mothers’ perceptions, which would have increased their anxieties.)

Starting school early Collin Corby was one of the two parents who did question starting school at four, and early literacy tasks. He himself was a slow starter at school, and he worked in a multinational company with many Scandinavian colleagues. The school his four year old son was going to was ‘quite academic’: I don’t think I even went to school when I was five. I went to school when I was six or seven. And I talked to a friend in Denmark, and they go to school at seven… It’s ridiculous how early English children go to school. So there is this actual concern in my mind, and there are also other objectives which we want for him apart from the education system, and you are aware that most of our friends or most people in our area are certainly trying to, or have the ambition to, get them into that sort of school . (Mr Corby, aged 36)

When he questioned his wife’s reading with his son in the evening, his wife said he had to catch up with the others so as not to be left behind, and also it was for his discipline. Whereas in my mind, you can see that argument, on the other hand I also have at the back of my mind should children be in school at five, never mind pushing them to read this book, you know, when he is obviously tired. Just leave it, let him play. I want him to play much more. (Mr Corby)

Kana Kerr, who had received a significant part of her education in the US, understood from the information she collected that there might be a delay in bilingual children’s speaking development for up to five years. That involved the risk of disadvantage. Although it’s only five years, their development will be delayed if I bring them up bilingually. Here, children go to school early, at four. When they go to the school, they might feel handicapped… In any case, they will be living in this country, so it’s important to have English as a base… The first year at school doesn’t matter so much…but I didn’t want Fiona to feel she was inferior to others. (Mrs Kerr)

She felt if schooling had started later, there would have been more time for children raised bilingually to catch up with monolingual English speakers, hence less possibility of being disadvantaged. Her statement expresses the anxieties of a number of the mothers in this period.

 

Going to school

Attributing it to the child’s shortcomings Mothers whose children had difficulties, and who did not question the tasks demanded of them, tended to see the problems as personal, and looked for the causes in the child and the family. They tried to cope in a way that conformed with what was demanded of the child. Atsuko Andrews talked about her son’s difficulties in coping with school life. He had just turned five, and was not able to sit still and engage in assigned tasks, which she noticed from a school visit. My son doesn’t have concentration, and that’s his problem. (Mrs Andrews)

Fusayo Farrell anticipated problems for her four year old: My daughter is not the type to sit down… not the type to learn letters by herself, unlike one of my friend’s sons who learnt the English alphabet by himself before he went to school. She is very good at ballet. She seems to be the type that wants to run around. (Mrs Farrell)

Her husband contrasted this with their easy-going six month old child. It may very well be, however, that it was more a matter of readiness for school than a personal problem, and that if the starting age were six, there would actually be no problem to deal with. Thus the early start of schooling put considerable pressure on the Japanese speaking mothers. . Socio-historical context I didn’t worry at all because it was only ‘half kindergarten’ at the beginning. (Mrs Welsh)

Wakiko Welsh, whose son was eighteen at the time of interview, commented about anxious young mothers. They might have been anxious because they were in the middle of raising young children, but she felt that they faced extra pressures, which mothers of her generation did not have to face, including an increasingly formal and prescriptive curriculum for four year olds. She thought there were fewer pressures when her son was starting school.

Less time to catch up As mentioned already, mothers of children with a perceived language delay were not easily reassured that it would eventually be all right. With an early start to schooling, moreover, and the teaching of literacy and numeracy skills to four year olds as part of a national strategy, children whose language development is slower are being given less time to catch up before the introduction of





Invisible work

these skills than in the past, and chances of difficulties at the beginning of school are increased. It is impossible to know whether delaying the introduction of literacy for a year would have reduced the pressures on both children and mothers, given the growing tendency towards pro-activist mothering, anyway. It is likely, however, that it would have made a difference to families with slow-starter children, for whom starting school was not at all easy (Mrs Andrews, Emerson, and to some extent Corby; Mrs Farrell and Moss were worried about this point as their children were about to start reception class). As pressures on young school children increase, the wisdom of such an early start has been increasingly questioned.3 It would seem that initially, when the switch from the five year old start — already one of the lowest in Europe — was made to the new school year after the fourth birthday, it was done primarily for administrative rather then pedagogic reasons (except for problems of five year olds starting just before the summer holiday, who seemed to go backwards over the summer — this was addressed by starting everyone earlier rather than later).4 Pre-summer starters may have gained from the switch, and many children appear to take it in their stride, but for slow starters, or children with very mild learning difficulties and some bilingual children, it allows less time to prepare for formal education, with its clear separation between play and study.5 This intensified the fears of those mothers who worried that their child might be disadvantaged by their project.

. Competing Demands — ‘not enough time’ . General picture — time competition Seven mothers had children in their early school years (six between the ages of 5 and 7). Comparing the mothers’ accounts of their life before and after school started, and comparing these accounts with those of the (three) mothers with four year old children not in school yet, one theme emerged strongly: time. The mothers with early school age children felt there was not enough time, and that they were always busy. (By contrast, none of the mothers with children aged 13 or more in Table 8–1 below reported such intense time pressures.) In fact, they did have less time available, at least for interaction with their child, than they did before their child started school. School took up most of the day time (approx. 8: 30–3:30, depending on the school, plus commuting time in some cases). Children came back from school between 3:30 and 4:00,

 

Going to school

and most were in bed between 7 and 8 o’clock. The hours in between passed very quickly. Chiaki Corby, one of the few non pro-activist mothers of younger children, noted: School is till 3:15, and James (aged 5) sometimes has tennis lessons and swimming. On other days, there is being invited and inviting friends. He comes back home about 6:00. Then meal and bath and… just 30 minutes to do homework. (Mrs Corby)

And Aki Andrews, who became more pro-activist: I would like to change my ways of interacting with him, and not say ‘Stop it’, ‘Do this’ so much, but we don’t have time. By the time he comes back home and has a chance to catch his breath, it’s already 4:00. We have to read a book that he brings back home everyday. It takes more than 20 minutes. He says ‘Can I play Lego for just a little bit?’ I feel pity for him, and want let him to play but … I don’t know about other children, but he doesn’t do it by himself unless I make him do it. At 5:00, we have tea. If tea-time becomes 6:00, his bedtime gets late. His Japanese is behind, too. Reading takes about 30 minutes. When it doesn’t go smoothly, it takes an hour. We fight over it and Rika (younger child) just watches us struggling through, poor girl. When it’s after 7:00, he just can’t read anything, even ‘here’ (because he is tired). He starts crying. Sometimes, we can’t finish the book… I don’t remember being told to study by my mother. I wonder why he’s so busy from this early age… The best moments are when I look at them sleeping, and in the morning when they wake up and say ‘ohayo’ (good morning). But then it’s rush, rush, rush. I keep on rushing him for the rest of the day. (Mrs Andrews)

(Aki Andews’ son had problems in adjusting to nursery, which persisted at school. She had also had the experience of helping her son to remember names — homework from the nursery — only to have all his pronunciation corrected by the teacher the next day. She felt very sorry for his ‘double burden’ of language delay and being taught ‘wrong things’ at home. I observed her son trying to do Kumon Method homework, and he seemed not quite ready for formal learning tasks, separated from play activities.) The Farrell’s case illustrates the stresses with less easy children: My wife has to get the kids (daughter, aged 4, and son, aged six months) fed and dressed, get teeth cleaned, and get Megan to school [sic: nursery school]. I mean Megan can take an hour and a half to eat breakfast, fiddling around. As far as I’m concerned I do it on Saturday mornings, so I don’t care about time. So when it comes to discipline, she can’t have her messing around. (Mr Farrell)





Invisible work

It is not difficult to imagine what will happen when her daughter starts school and starts to bring back homework. The Jeffries seemed to have had a very mature, ready-to-study daughter, who was reading and writing well at school and did her homework herself. It helped, because Junko Jeffries had two younger sons to look after as well, but she still felt they were short of time. . Intensifying factors — beyond school work Why did the children become so busy? It was not just because of the decreased time at home and having homework. They became busy because they started to do extracurricular activities after school. Some mothers now felt that being able to read and write as well as other children was not enough, and that they also needed to take part in these activities. To understand why, careful examination of the mothers’ accounts is again needed.

Something extra: after-school activities Some mothers did not start talking about how busy they were, even when they were talking about difficulties such as getting homework done. It was as if they did not consider this relevant to the interview. When they were asked about an ordinary school day, however, they then began to talk freely about how busy they were. One of the main reasons was extracurricular or after-school activities, which they felt were important. There were three main reasons for this. First, everyone else seemed to be doing it. We have seen that the mothers had become sensitive to what others were doing, in part because of their own uncertainties. It was part of their survival strategy for raising children abroad. Second, they were concerned to equip their children to live successfully in British society (the sense of responsibility went beyond language, it should be noted), and this might enhance their prospects. Third, the mothers considered themselves responsible for stimulation and emotional stability of their children (cf. Eisenstadt, 1986). After-school activities were, in a way, a continuation of this, delivered not by the mothers themselves, but through delegation to other organisations or institutions. Kimi Kirkland had three children, aged seven, five and two. The older two had various lessons, including piano, karate, swimming, ballet and Kumon Method (math). When asked why the children were doing these activities, she replied that the children said they wanted to do them, as many other children were doing them as well. (This was the main reason given by other mothers, also.) She was not sure what was really necessary and what was not. She

 

Going to school

thought the school had asked the parents to send their children to swimming lessons, but she was not sure. She did not want to push her children, but she did not want to say no to their interest in the activities. Some mothers might have been more reluctant if they were in Japan, and had a focus to their life other than childrearing. And they had less idea of what was necessary in preparing their children for life in the UK. What they could do was to look at others, and if others seemed to be doing it, it was difficult for them to decide it was not necessary. Participation in extracurricular activities further reduced the time for interaction in Japanese. It is easy to say that if the mothers wanted more time to interact, they should have stopped the children from going to them. But for the mothers, these activities were not completely optional. The result was a dilemma. On the one hand, they wanted more time for Japanese. On the other, they wanted their child to experience extracurricular activities so that they would be better prepared for life in the UK. This dilemma was intensified when they saw their children enjoying the activities. The pressures from the dilemma, and from the after-school activities, were quite intense: They come back at 3:30, then it’s swimming, piano, cubs, dance, washing swimming kits, drying, letting them shower…and meals and homework. Two children going here and there… It’s hard work. (Mrs Rankin)

The two Emerson children (aged ten and six) went to different independent schools, ten miles from home. Emi Emerson drove backwards and forwards twice a day, spending an hour and a half in the car. They left for school at 8 o’clock, and: They have something every day — violin, drama, sports… We usually come home around 5:30 to 6:00. Then meal and so on, and homework. It is really busy. The children are so busy. It’s hard for me, too. …. It ‘s so sad that they just don’t have time to play. And it’s getting worse. (Mrs Emerson)

Fathers — difficult to understand Despite misgivings, Emi Emerson, and many other mothers, saw these activities, as well as homework, as necessary and/or beneficial. Some husbands found this, and resulting pressures, hard to understand, at least from the mother’s perspective. Asked what her husband thought of her struggle to help her son with his homework, Aki Andrews replied: He doesn’t know. He thinks that’s what every mother does (meaning he thinks it isn’t special or difficult).





Invisible work

TO: I wonder why… Men usually don’t talk about what other families do at home, do they? (Mrs Andrews)

He was, she said, trying to be a good husband and father in his own way. He also understood his wife’s need to meet other Japanese people, but he just could not understand why life with children was so stressful for his wife. None of the fathers themselves expressed worry or dissatisfaction about extracurricular activities, although some fathers of young children (Mr Corby, Jeffries, Moss) expressed directly and others (Mr Emerson, Rankin) indirectly their dissatisfaction about young children having homework from such an early age. Some no doubt thought the former were worthwhile, while others may not have wanted to criticise their wife’s decision for the children to participate. It appeared, however, that it was not an issue for them, and in general they seemed not to be aware that after school activities made the children busy, or that it was a source of difficulty for their wife. Richard Rankin refused to accept after-school activities as a reason for his wife’s being tired, and not having enough energy for him. He questioned why she could not work full time after they separated, and when she tried to explain how much work was involved in helping the children after school, he did not accept her explanation. There were exceptions. Nigel Nichols, himself a school teacher, encouraged participation in after-school activities. Their two children, aged fourteen and eleven, went to an independent school about twenty minutes distant by car. The school was famous for its academic standards and extracurricular activities. School finishes at 4:20. They very rarely leave before 6:00, though. Cathy — games, swimming, gym everyday. Clare, Monday swimming, Tuesday music theory, Wednesday playing match, Thursday playing in the orchestra, Friday violin lesson…Not very much time for family activities. Very often the older one has no time at all for herself. They have to fit in homework and music practice. (Mr Nichols)

Natsuko Nichols was ambivalent about the children doing so many activities, partly because it meant less time for Japanese, but on balance she approved. She believed that Japanese people were not taught to enjoy their lives, and if the children enjoyed the activities, she could not reasonably object. She wanted her children to acquire skills to enjoy their lives in a way which she could not when she was growing up in Japan. She retained a certain ambivalence, however.

 

Going to school

Is it cultural, attributable to ‘education mothers’? While the mothers thought that their own standards of judgement did not necessarily apply in the UK, and tried to adapt in a way that would not disadvantage their children, some husbands noted differences from when they were growing up, when children were allowed to roam more, and had less homework, if any, in their early years. Richard Rankin was less inclined to attribute differences he saw in his own children to changes in UK society, than to his wife’s approach, which he believed reflected her culture. On the whole, there are some cultural differences. English children tend to be independent and Japanese mothers tend to mother a bit more, tend to keep children close. It’s a generalisation, but yes, English children go out and play by themselves more. (Mr Rankin)

Even if they were not so direct, some of the other fathers, too, possibly shared this view to some extent, which made it difficult to sympathise with their wife’s difficulties.

Socio-historical factors When the mothers’ reference point was their own childhood, rather than other children of their child’s age, they also felt that children did not have enough time to play and to do whatever they liked, and that they did not have enough time to relax with their children. She is only five, six. I was playing all day long, skipping with friends in the neighbourhood at that age. She comes back home, does reading, does homework… From 6:30, there is a cartoon on JSTV (Japanese satellite television). She does things so that she can watch it. She watches while she eats supper. It’s only in that 30 minutes that she relaxes. Then it’s 7:00, bath and she gets sleepy. I feel sorry for her. She can only play with her friends on Friday. (Mrs Jeffries) I used to read comics. I played at the park until supper time, and I don’t remember studying at home in my primary school years… My mother says; ‘There was no need to tell you to do so much when you were small. Why do Masumi and Matthew need to be told to do so many things? It must be hard for you, too. ‘ (Mrs Emerson)

Similar views were expressed by Chiaki and Collin Corby, Aki Andrews, Masayo Moss, Etsuko Ericson and Jim Jeffries as well. A number of fathers (Mr Jeffries, Andrews, Emerson, Nichols) noted that the freedom of mobility they had enjoyed when they were small had become much more restricted because of fear of abduction or traffic accidents.





Invisible work

We have much more responsibility in entertaining them than the parents 30–40 years ago. Certainly up to until age 11 we made a lot more entertainment ourselves. (Mr Nichols)

Restricted freedom, however, meant extra work for parents. This was normally assigned to the mother, and if she had more than one child, it could become quite demanding. There were some variations on ‘different from my own childhood’ reflections. Cyril Cook was keen on his children doing sport after school, especially swimming, because he would have liked to have done those activities. And both Steve and Sachiko Sorensen (aged 54 and 48) agreed that their children should do homework and other study after school, rather than laze around, because they believed in the virtues of working hard. Significantly, the older mothers’ recollections of their childrens’ early school days were quite different from those of the younger mothers, suggesting the rapid pace of social change.6 Perhaps it was no longer a pressing issue for them, but it did seem to have been much less trying. First, in general there seem to have been fewer organised after school activities. Second, some of the mothers were probably not aware of those that did exist. (It seemed that some of the older English speaking mothers were not as ‘comparison’-oriented or information-seeking as the younger Japanese-speaking mothers.) Third, since there was a less extensive Japanese network, some mothers may have been isolated, and without information about education in general, distanced themselves from school as a result. As long as they go to school every day… I don’t understand English school systems. (Mrs Thrush)

Bilingualism: now an item for proper childrearing While some of the older mothers drew a line at what they thought was reasonable to expect them to do as mothers, younger mothers seemed to find this much more difficult. When it came to language, the mothers felt there was now the expectation that they would teach their child Japanese. As more information accumulates on this (élite) type of bilingualism, and it is recognised that bilingualism might give certain advantages in intellectual development, it becomes something that should not be missed; part of proper childrearing in intermarried families. This area is very muticultural and encourages bilingualism to great extent, exceptionally. In a way, it’s trendy to be so in the middle class… (Mrs Kirkland)

 

Going to school

The irony was that mothers had less time to devote to this, as it competed with other ‘essentials’ for their school-age children. At the same time, for those who were persisting with Japanese, the need for time grew greater, as they approached the issue of Japanese reading and writing.

. Adding Japanese reading and writing We have seen that some of the children were struggling with reading and writing in English, which was a source of anxiety for their mothers. We have also seen that there were competing demands on time after school, in the form of extracurricular activities, which young mothers did not regard as completely voluntary. Their child — four or five years old — would come back home after 3:30, sometimes physically tired, but even more tired of sitting down and learning. Even without Japanese, mothers felt their child needed more time to play and relax, and they needed more relaxed time with their child. But many Japanese speaking mothers felt they also had to teach Japanese reading and writing. Why were they so keen to do this, and to do it early? . Mothers’ reasons for introducing Japanese reading and writing (early) There were, again, underlying currents pushing the mothers in this direction, which may be summarised as follows. 1. Since some children started speaking two languages at the same time, mothers tended to think that, as a natural progression, literacy should progress like that. As their child was beginning to learn English reading and writing, so it was time to learn Japanese reading and writing. (The differences were, first, that while English literacy tasks could be largely done at school, there was noone but the mothers to ensure that the Japanese tasks were done. It was no easy job for the mothers to become teachers in this way. Second, it had to be accomplished in time which was much more limited than either the time available for English, or the time available before their child went to school.) 2. The introduction of English literacy stimulated or threatened mothers. Some felt that since their child was learning English reading and writing, why not Japanese? Others felt that if English got established and not Japanese, Japanese would lag or even fade away. 3. Early education schemes, especially Kumon Method (which is the only





Invisible work

scheme widely available for Japanese learning outside Japan), encourage reading and writing from a very young age.7 Indeed, Kumon Method encourages reading from before age one, by showing flash cards to the baby. 4. Kumon Method also encourages the establishment of the minority (Japanese) language first in literacy. 5. There is a widespread lay belief (which Kumon Method reinforces) that the Japanese language is so difficult, it must be established thoroughly. English will follow later, naturally. 6. The mothers were stimulated by Japanese short-term residents’ children, who seemed to be starting early and successfully. The latter went to independent schools, paid for by the father’s company. These schools are chosen for their reputation, particularly in academic matters, and were likely to introduce literacy early, reinforcing the notion that since it is happening in English, it should be happening in Japanese. It was very difficult for Japanese-speaking mothers to position themselves outside these currents, and for their decisions not to be influenced by them.

Practicalities of teaching Japanese reading and writing Teaching Japanese reading and writing, however, is no easy task, particularly in the home. Not only are there two Japanese phonetic alphabets, but there are also around two thousand Chinese characters (ideographs originating in China, imported and to some extent modified in Japan) in common use, characters which often have several ways of being read, so they need to be learned in context.8 The contexts come up in daily life in Japan, but less so when living outside Japanese society. Mothers who wished to teach their children Japanese reading and writing either had to gather materials and try to do it themselves, enrol in Kumon Method classes, and/or send their child to a Japanese Supplementary School (JSS) on Saturday. The first option was not easy: It’s not easy as a parent to sit down and have a language lessons with a child. As I said, we did try at one stage, but it didn’t work. (Mr Findlay, who observed his wife trying and giving up after a short time.) It’s very difficult for children to understand the change from the mother and child, to teacher and pupil. It was difficult for them, and for me as well. (Mrs Nichols, who taught Japanese reading and writing by herself for several years)

As for the second option, Kumon Method classes, only one of the Japanese

 

Going to school

speaking mothers with a child aged thirteen or more used Kumon (Table 8–1. It is no coincidence that none of these mothers felt strong time pressures when their child started school.) The exception was Mrs Manni, who was a Kumon instructor. Kumon was probably not readily available to those with the oldest children. Its international spread only really gained momentum in the early 1990s. But when it did become established in the UK, its influence spread rapidly. Mothers who take their children to Kumon classes browse through materials stressing the importance of starting ‘from age 0’ while they are waiting, and talk about these ideas with other mothers, who as we have seen, were ‘information seekers’. Thus even mothers who do not enrol their children know something of the ideas, and some borrow Kumon Method materials from other mothers. Some younger mothers tried Kumon Method and then stopped, while others persisted. It was not easy, since daily homework is required. Kimi Kirkland described it as a ‘state of war’: We tried Kumon for one month, but it was very difficult in terms of time. In reality, we didn’t have time. It was like a war everyday. I was always pressured. If I did something during the day, for example, supper wasn’t ready in the evening, so it got late, and they had homework that I had to attend to… (Mrs Kirkland, who had three young children aged 7, 5 and 2)

Moreover, as Ritsuko Rankin pointed out: It requires time, energy and money. About £100 a month for Japanese (£30 a month for magazines, and Kumon for two children). That’s a big financial commitment. You have to do work from school, and Japanese. They come home at 3:30, and after that I spend time only for them. From 6:00, bath, supper and home work. It’s been solid ‘work’ for me. (Mrs Rankin)

The third option was Japanese Supplementary School (JSS). There are ten of these schools in the UK (three in and around London), located where there are concentrations of Japanese short-term residents, whose children they cater for. The major role of the schools is to establish or retain Japanese literacy so that when the families return to Japan, the children can be re-absorbed into the Japanese education system without difficulty. They are funded and operated by the Japanese government, with corporate donations, and follow the Japanese national curriculum at the same pace as schools in Japan, though in fewer teaching hours. While supplementary schools for bilingual children of other languages tend to take into account the situation of bilingual children, and develop their own curriculum, JSS are not primarily a venue for minority language learning.





Invisible work

Many of the families in this study did not live near a JSS. For three families with older children, however, who lived within travelling distance, JSS was a crucial support which enabled the mothers to persevere in their language project. What you can teach by yourself is limited. You can only teach daily conversation, and I thought it’s the best to go to a school where children learn in a structured way. (Mrs Hope)

This perseverance did not come without costs, as we shall see in Chapter 9. In addition, some mothers thought that academic pressures within JSS have been mounting, which may make attendance by children of intermarried families difficult, unless special classes are introduced. According to Junko Jeffries, participation by children of intermarried families can be seen as detrimental:9 I was told by one Japanese short-term mother that it will be very hard if Yumi can’t even read or write the phonetic alphabets. They (short-term mothers) have their own standards, and for them it’s a problem if ‘half ’ (Japanese — non-Japanese) children drag the JSS class standards down. I think she was very frank because she was a good friend of mine. So we do Kumon, but it has not been easy. There have been ups and downs, extreme ones. We’ll do it as long as we can. (Mrs Jeffries)

. Dealing with time conflicts and pressures . Parents’ strategies for dealing with time conflicts and pressures Two main factors influenced how parents dealt with the time conflicts and pressures, and developed a strategy for coping. One of these was parental values, which came to the surface because of choices which needed to be made. (The strategy adopted by the Nichols for a while of reducing the childrens’ sleep to expand the time available was not viable in the long term.) The other was educational positioning. Let us look at these in turn.

Parental values Decisions had to be made, and they reflected parental values. Fathers’ values began to be influential. There were several key dimensions. a. Attitudes towards forcing children to do things. Starting (Japanese reading and writing) early was definitely an advantage. You can’t avoid forcing children. You need energy and patience. (Mrs Sorensen)

 

Going to school

One mother I knew insisted on using Japanese. She didn’t respond when children spoke English to her. She was very eager to teach reading and writing, too, but the children weren’t motivated… Unless you do it like her, children won’t learn. (Mrs Kirkland)

‘Forcing’ was a recurring theme during this stage (reading and writing). Some of the parents felt that forcing children was inherent in bilingual-child rearing, but some were reluctant to do it, even if they thought it was necessary for successful bilingual development. Kimi Kirkland and Masayo Moss saw others doing it, but were very reluctant themselves. She (Singaporean mother, speaking Chinese) is extremely strict, and the children just obey her. She uses flash cards and forces her son to study so much. I don’t want to go that far. I don’t want to push my children. (Mrs Moss)

Many fathers were clear in their opposition to forcing: I don’t like kids being pushed by parents. I was never pushed at home. As far as I’m concerned, when they are kids, they should just enjoy themselves being kids, find out about themselves, play with other children. (Mr Farrell)

Simon Sharpe was forced to do things by his parents, and he did not want this for his children. Kevin Kerr, too, stressed the need for positive support, not pushing. In some cases parent’s views clashed. Collin and Chiaki Corby had ‘something between argument and discussion’ (Collin Corby) over the issue. TO: Is your husband’s view influencing yours? Yes, very strongly. He said to me, ‘Don’t you ever force James.’ I started to think about it and he was right. TO: From when? After James started learning reading and writing (of English). (Mrs Corby)

On the other hand, Eric Emerson was also worried about his daughter being forced to learn both languages in spite of obvious difficulties, but because the division of labour in childrearing was so firmly established, he did not interfere, and the difficulties persisted. This was one of the consequences of the division of labour established between the couple. b. Childrearing principle — doing it for the child’s own sake . One theme that emerged from those families continuing to teach Japanese reading and writing, however, which over-rode negative associations of ‘forcing’, was that it was ‘for the child’s sake.’ Michi Manni believed it was necessary for her daughter to get on in UK society: if her daughter did not have skills





Invisible work

which counterbalanced her being half-Japanese in a ‘racist society,‘ she would fare much worse. Being able to read and write Japanese — being a balanced bilingual — would give her valuable tools. It’s a parent’s responsibility to raise their children so that they can stand on their own two feet if they (parents) die. (Mrs Manni)

As a ‘tool for life’ (Matthew Moss), Japanese reading and writing could successfully compete with other demands and win a place for time allocation.10 Popular reasons for using Japanese at the beginning — because the mother wanted children to communicate with them or grandparents in Japan — were often too weak for the mothers to sustain the effort (and forcing) involved in teaching Japanese reading and writing during this period. Some mothers weighed up the costs for children, including a lack of time to relax or socialise with friends, and felt guilty if they put their children in that situation for their (mothers’) sake. It was only when it was done, in the parents’ view, for the sake of the child, that teaching reading and writing was not perceived as intervention or forcing . One of the older fathers, Steve Sorensen, had a slightly different view, but again he thought learning to read and write Japanese was for his daughter’s sake, and he supported his wife: A child’s job is to study. I really think people don’t demand enough of children. (Mr Sorensen, aged 54 with an eighteen year old daughter) He liked the idea of making a child study more, so it fitted. As you know schools in England don’t make children study at all, especially state schools. So after school, they don’t study, which is a waste. They can learn a lot when they are young. (Mrs Sorensen)

Such views, derived from interpretations of their own experiences when they were young, supported the continuation of the bilingual project very well. c. ‘Sacrifice’ As discussed in Chapters 6 and 7, some families (Harrison, Irvine, Ericson, Thompson) reduced or stopped Japanese because they did not like the idea of spending a lot of time and energy for children. This happened when their child was aged three or four, but the same questions arose during early schooling. If they were to continue, they would have to spend more time and energy than ever. Some mothers decided not to attempt reading and writing, while others opted instead to start and see how things went. Children are most important, but I don’t want to sacrifice myself for them… If

 

Going to school

James (aged 5) himself shows interest, though, I might consider doing it (teaching reading and writing), even if it’s a big sacrifice on my part. (Mrs Corby)

Whether teaching Japanese reading and writing was seen as a ‘sacrifice’ or not depended on the mothers’ experiences and aspirations for their lives. Nonetheless, all the mothers who did start, talked about it as hard work, indeed very hard work. d. Child’s ethnicity and future Discussions about the bilingual language project in this stage were dominated by practical concerns about whether to attempt reading and writing, and how to do it. Not many parents talked about ethnicity and identity, but two fathers — Jim Jeffries and Collin Corby — did relate these issues to decisions on language at this stage. They had opposite views. Jim Jeffries thought it important for children to be proficient in both languages (and not be caught in between), as well as important for his wife. On the contrary, Collin Corby was opposed to children becoming rootless by belonging to two cultures as a result of parents not considering their identity seriously enough. It’s easy for them to feel both sides of their identity if they can speak Japanese. If they don’t, it will be difficult to feel later in life. It would be more confusing to tell them you are English than telling them that you are half English and half Japanese. (Mr Jeffries) I met people when I was in Japan…their father was American and their mother was Japanese and they lived three years in Japan and 3 years in America, and then Europe. They went to international schools … It seems to me … it wasn’t that they did not have identity, but they just didn’t … they sort of existed everywhere and nowhere… They didn’t seem to have particularly stable roots or a stable background. (Mr Corby)

We will consider ethnicity and identity in more detail in Chapter 9. Here I will simply note that questions of ethnicity and identity, which until this stage had been rather abstract, were starting to become more concrete, particularly for fathers, and were sometimes linked to questions of language.

Educational positioning The other important factor in dealing with time conflicts and pressures was how the families positioned themselves in relation to ‘education.’ Here, education refers to schooling, the school curriculum, homework and to some extent after-school activities. Pressures from ‘education’ were sometimes not identi-





Invisible work

fied because they were taken for granted; school and society demanded it, so it was not to be questioned. They were ‘invisible’ (cf. Bernstein’s [1995] ‘invisible pedagogy’), or in a hierarchical relationship (cf. David, 1993) and hence legitimate or unavoidable. Some parents, however, seemed to position themselves outside that hierarchical relationship, and questioned the legitimacy of the demands emanating from ‘education’ or ‘customs.’ To do so, however, they needed confidence, and resources for that confidence, or a strong countervailing outlook. Simply put, when parents positioned themselves in the system or hierarchy, they accepted that their children were meant to learn (English) reading and writing as assigned, and when the children were not doing well, it was the result of their (mother’s) shortcomings. In these circumstances, as in the Andrew’s case, it was difficult to pursue teaching Japanese reading and writing further. However, if parents were in this kind of relationship, they also tended to absorb ideas and advice about childhood bilingualism unquestioningly. The result was more work for the child and the mother (cf. LeVine, 1988). On the other hand, when the parents positioned themselves outside this relationship, they questioned whether the demands were reasonable and necessary. This gave some families pursuing Japanese reading and writing a breathing space (e.g. Manni, Nichols), but it also led others (e.g. Corbys) to question the pressures originating from this source as well. As a result, Japanese reading and writing was dropped. . Going ahead? Raising children to become bilingual requires continuous revisions of plans and strategies (Baker, 1995), but the early school years require particularly significant decisions. There were many factors for parents to consider — whether the child could cope with school work and Japanese reading and writing at the same time, whether the child would be willing to sit down and learn with the mother, whether the child had time to do that, whether the mother was willing to invest the time and energy, as well as various parental aspirations for their life with the child. Here I will briefly discuss what kind of decisions and adjustments were made.

Speaking is enough Not many families with younger children actually decided to teach Japanese reading writing beyond the 50 phonetic characters (Table 8–1). There were two

 

Going to school

Table 8.1 Japanese reading and writing in families with school-age children (Japanese and English/Japanese speakers only) family name

first child’s age

taught Japanese reading and writing at beginning of school? (until what age?)

used Kumon Method? (KM) Japanese Supplementary School? (JSS)

Andrew Corby Kerr Jeffries Irvine Kirkland Naylor Rankin Emerson Avery Manni Sharpe Nichols Appleby Welsh Hope Sorensen

05 05 05 06 06 07 07 09 10 11 13 13 14 16 18 18 19

x (continuing) — (may start) x (continuing) — — x (phonetics only) x ( – 8) x ( – 9) — x (continuing) x ( – 10) x ( – 11) — (8 – 12) x ( – 8) x (continuing) x ( – 18)

KM; (planning JSS) n.a. (planning JSS) KM; (planning JSS) n.a. n.a. — KM (1 year) KM & JSS (3 years) KM (less than a month) KM — — JSS (8 – 13) JSS (1 year) JSS JSS (3 years)

main reasons — it was too much for the child, and excessively hard work for the mother — but the factors discussed above influenced the decisions. The Corbys, for example, considered it too demanding for the mother, and too demanding for the child. They distanced themselves from ‘educational’ and pro-activist information. In Chiaki Corby’s view: The children start (English) reading and writing at five or so. What do you think? I think it’s hard for them to start two languages. I don’t think they become good at both at the same rate. May be in 5, 10 years time they will have the same ability in both languages, but I think learning two languages together to the same extent is asking too much of children. In principle, I want to raise my children bilingually, but frankly speaking, if they can speak and understand, that’s OK. They can do reading and writing when they show interest. (Mrs Corby)

It was also for the family life style. It’s hard for me. You don’t have Saturday morning if James goes to JSS. It affects how we spend weekends. I don’t mind him not being able to write. (Mrs Corby)





Invisible work

A number of parents made a pragmatic decision that ‘speaking is enough’ or ‘speaking plus Japanese phonetics (which children’s books are written in) is enough.’ It won’t worry me if he can’t write in Japanese. I think it’s a big enough battle just to get them continuing to speak Japanese. He’s gonna have to speak English, but he could easily survive without speaking a word of Japanese. That’s the hard bit. And that’s what I would work on harder. To try to keep him speaking. I don’t know how, but I really don’t want him to lose that. (Mr Moss)

Indeed, being able to continue interacting in Japanese was an accomplishment in itself. Sometimes I say in the end of the day ‘Mummy is tired and can’t speak English now’, and he tries to speak Japanese, but he also says ‘I can’t say it in Japanese because it’s too difficult.’ There are times when I have said I wouldn’t speak English, but the children have never said they wouldn’t speak Japanese. (Mrs Rankin) He kept on speaking. He watches Japanese videos and he likes them. He still remembers it, because he did it when he was younger. (Mrs Sharpe, of her 13 year old son)

And sometimes the children showed appreciation. There was the occasional sign (that they would stop Japanese altogether), but those disappeared, and I could continue. When they started learning the dreaded French, they realised how difficult learning foreign languages was, and how far they had already come with Japanese. (Mrs Avery)

Where mothers had been speaking Japanese exclusively, Japanese interaction was maintained, even if the use of English increased. Where they had vacillated earlier — mixing English and Japanese from an earlier age — Japanese tended to get dropped altogether. This may have been because the children could not establish a firm enough Japanese language base to engage even in daily conversation at home, and/or the mother and child had not managed to establish a Japanese-dominant communication pattern which could hold the bottom line of daily conversation. . Full steam ahead A number of parents went ‘full steam ahead’ with reading and writing, at least initially. Most modified this decision after a while, in response to mounting

 

Going to school

pressures. This happened when Ritsuko Rankin’s son was eight. She felt that the gains no longer justified the time needed, which could be used for doing things more important for her son’s life. Emi Emerson continued until her older child was nine, but stopped as a result of her difficulties at school, for which she was diagnosed as having moderate learning difficulties. She felt that her daughter had become more relaxed, and more positive about learning in general. Sumie Sharpe, who was determined after switching from exclusive use of English to exclusive use of Japanese when her son was three years old, also reached a turning point. I taught him kanji (Chinese characters) until he was nine, but when he started middle school I became tired, and the third child was born, and my father died. Many things happened at the same time, and the pace went down, and stopped. He still watches Japanese videos and he likes them. And he still speaks (four years on), but there are things he can’t say. I used to push on, but now I accept it, and occasionally repeat things in Japanese… When he comes to need Japanese in the future, he has a base.

Natsuko Nichols continued until her older daughter was eleven, but stopped because of family friction. Nigel Nichols wanted to support his wife’s project, but felt it was getting too much. I am very keen for girls to speak Japanese. I would like them to speak, I would like them to write. I would LIKE them to be able to find half an hour or an hour a day when they can sit down and do that. The problem is, certainly in the term time, that it’s just not possible. (Mr Nichols)

Atsuko Appleby continued JSS until her older son was twelve, but stress on the children became more than the parents wished to bear. Their son was getting more homework, at the same time as Japanese reading and writing was becoming more difficult. It was ‘time to stop.’ (Atsuko Appleby). They had homework from the local school, and it’s not nice if they lose their leisure time. They might just relax and watch TV when they come home from school, but I wonder if it’s good to deprive them of all their free time by doing Japanese homework. It’s OK if they like doing that themselves, like violin or basketball for example. When I tried to do homework with them after JSS so they wouldn’t have so much to do during the week Ashley said to me ‘At least give them some peace on Saturdays.’ (Mrs Appleby)

A few families, however, were trying to continue with Japanese reading and writing at the time of the interviews, including the Jeffries, whose oldest child was still six, and the Andrews, whose oldest child was still five. From the accounts of





Invisible work

the older families, they were still on the ‘starting line’. Three families with older children (Manni, 13 years old; Hope 18 and Sorensen 19), however, had persisted. A number of factors facilitated this. The Mannis and the Sorensens had only one daughter, whom the mother considered easy to bring up. Michi Manni had positioned herself outside the educational hierarchy, but had a strong motivation to raise her daughter to become bilingual, deriving from a determination to fight racism. She was a full time housewife because she could not find a satisfactory job, but became a part time Kumon Method instructor, and had enough time and energy for the project. In the Sorensen’s case, Steve Sorensen was favourably disposed because he believed in ‘hard work’ in education. Sachiko Sorensen was determined because of a fear of isolation. Her daughter was the only person she felt close to, and who could understand her. She thought that without teaching her Japanese, she would lose that only close person in her life in the UK. She continued up to A-level, and ‘accomplished’ her project. One thing that can be said about mothers who continued with the project, with or without writing, was that they were prepared to be assertive. Asayo Avery mentioned that ‘there was an occasional sign’ that her children would stop using Japanese altogether, ‘but those disappeared, and I could continue’. These ‘occasional signs’ were in fact expressions of resistance, which she ignored. Had she adopted a child-centred approach to childrearing, she might have found it much harder to ignore them. Indeed it might be said that success in the project ultimately depended on being able to resist pressures towards child-centredness, which is advocated not just for childrearing, but as a communication strategy for bilingual language development as well. The Hope’s case was somewhat different, and will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

Conclusions In this chapter we have seen, in another phase and setting, how the determination to raise children bilingually was deeply intertwined with other elements of the families’ daily lives. In addition to the legacy of the earlier periods, there were new situations and challenges, which prompted mothers to consider ultimate objectives, especially the need for their children to be well adjusted and confident about living in the UK, and to approach language use in this context. To ensure this, they were concerned that their children got a reasonable start at school (comparable to monolingual children). This meant attending to English language development, which was seen as

 

Going to school

the basis for future formal learning, for social interaction, and for their child’s confidence in general. Mothers speaking Japanese also felt that acceptance of their Japanese language use by others was now conditional on their child making a good start at school, and hence on English language development. For those who perceived that their child had a ‘language delay’, reassurances by professionals that their child would eventually catch up were of little comfort. The early start to schooling (compared with other countries, including Japan) and formal education may have intensified the pressures these mothers felt. Research by early years education specialists suggests that their fears were not misplaced (Bennett and Kell, 1989; Cleave and Brown, 1994). Pressures on Japanese speaking mothers were also intensified by the fear that as their child acquired English literacy skills, their Japanese would fall behind, and the gap would become insurmountable. It was not easy to devote extra time for Japanese after school, however, because the mothers felt that after-school activities were part of the education ‘package’ in the UK, and they should let their children go to them. As a result, there simply wasn’t enough time for the children to do everything. The mothers faced a dilemma of ‘burdening’ their child with Japanese reading and writing, for which they had to feel guilty, or modifying their Japanese language objectives and accepting that their children would not be able to read and write, at least at a level of functional literacy. In the latter case they would not learn to express very complex concepts in Japanese, but at least they would be able to use basic daily conversation. The responses of the mothers were shaped by the way they positioned themselves in relation to ‘education’, and by their parental values. A number of fathers found it difficult to understand both the time pressures, and the dilemma. This was due to the division of labour which basically continued from the previous period, their more detached view of language development, and their more detached view of after-school activities, since these were less important when they themselves were growing up. Some suspected that their wife was being too pro-activist, and that this might be linked to culture — the Japanese ‘education mother’ phenomenon. There were, however, exceptions, and in general fathers began to express opinions more actively, based on their values, particularly regarding time pressures. Particular circumstances — ‘easy child’, factors resulting in a strong determination on the part of the mother — may be identified in those cases where the mother persisted with the bilingual ‘project’ which encompassed reading and writing. We shall look at these in more detail in Chapter 9, which explores family relationships, identity and ethnicity.





Invisible work

Notes . For those children who started school in 1997 or later — depending on the area — a formal ‘baseline assessment’ is carried out within the first six months of starting school. The mothers’ fears correspond with those of some early-years education specialists. Dowling (1995: 144) notes: ‘Interest in “detecting” where the child is increased with the National Curriculum: much of the activity sprang from a concern to establish a starting point or baseline for what is added and eventually achieved in the National Curriculum levels at year 2. The work is contentious and there are very real fears about a type of assesment which aims to measure a child’s ability on entry to school. These fears are to do with the inappropriateness of testing young children: the possibility of early “labelling” of individuals; implying judgements on parents as a result of measuring their children’s early achievements; the dangers of bias and discrimination; limiting the assessment of children to that which is easily measurable; and promoting a “test” which is simply a logical down extension of National Curriculum Assessment at 7 years.’ . Margaret Morrissey, president of the National Confederation of PTAs, has noted: ‘Over the last few years it is quite amazing how many more parents have started teaching children at home’ (Independent on Sunday, 2 November, 1997. She attributed this to the influence of the National Curriculum and SATs. . ‘It had to happen: as soon as the Task Group on Assessment and Testing proposed a straight line model of learning, with ten distinct levels through which normal students would steadily progress (DES, 1988), early years educators knew there was worse to come … (‘Desirable Outcomes For Children’s Learning’, DES, 1988) marks a turning point for early years education. The precious territory of children’s lives and learning before compulsory school age has been invaded; the people who gave us the National Curriculum are staking out their claims on new ground, where their writ has never run before.’ (Drummond, 1996:56). . See Bennett and Kell, 1989, for details of this shift. Budgetry considerations also became important, for schools because of declining school rolls with the declining numbers of children, and for the government, since adding provision for four year olds at existing schools, with less intense staffing ratio requirements, was a much cheaper option than creating new institutions (ibid.). See also Ghaye and Pascal, 1988; Cleave and Brown, 1994. . In spite of the recognised importance of integrating play and study at this stage, the majority of reception year teachers have not been trained specifically to teach four year olds, and adapt methods from teaching older children, in which play and study are separated. The tendency to focus on ‘3R’ work is exaccerbated by a lack of resources and support for four year olds, and parental pressures. “The picture that emerges from the research evidence is clearly not a rosey one. It portrays inappropriately trained teachers attempting, with little assistance, to provide a differentiated curriculum to classes of some 30 children covering an age range of two or three years. Teachers are characterised as having honourable intentions but without the experience, resources or parental support to carry them out. They thus fall back on stressing the 3Rs, thereby denying the four year olds the curriculum they need and deserve.’ (Bennett and Kell, 1989:7)

 

Going to school

. To my knowledge no systematic studies have been done on historical changes in extracurricular activities. The evidence here is anecdotal. . In some respects the Kumon Method is similar to the Doman Method (cf. Doman, 1979). . Ke (1998) notes that retaining and producing Chinese characters is not only difficult, but time consuming. . As JSS follow the Japanese National curriculum, children start school in the April following their sixth birthday. Mrs Jeffries’ daughter was six, and was due to start JSS four months after the interview. . For Matthew Moss the ‘tool for life’ was speaking Japanese. He was wary about reading and writing. By contrast, for Michi Manni, it meant reading and writing to a high level of proficiency as well.



 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

Introduction The last two chapters considered family relationships in two key periods; early childrearing years, and early education. In this chapter the initial focus is on later school years. In terms of language use and development, the trajectories had largely been set by this time. The focus is therefore less on language, and more on changes within the family, although language use was intertwined with these. The growing independence of the children, both in terms of responsibility for daily arrangements and use of time, changed family relations in a number of ways. In addition, parents — especially mothers — were themselves undergoing a period of ‘intense midlife concerns’ in which they questioned their ‘current identity and correctness of … previous life choices’ (Koski and Steinberg, 1990: 466). Parents’ relations with children changed, of course; ‘negotiation’ (Tae Thompson) became more prominent. Relations between parents underwent change as well. Ideas, orientations and tensions which were largely submerged in the earlier stages of childrearing were now brought to the surface. In addition, faced with the growing independence of their children, and with more time on their hands (as younger children passed through this stage), mothers’ attention was increasingly drawn to their own future, and what they might be doing for the rest of their lives. In some respects these postparenting issues are universal (cf. Roberts and Zuengler, 1985), but there also appear to be distinctive structural features of the intermarried families, again relating to the situation of the minority mother in (for her) a ‘foreign’ land. These changes provide an excellent opportunity to consider questions of aspirations, identity and ethnicity. Unfortunately, as many of the families which participated in the in-depth interviews had young children, the number of families discussed is limited. Particular note will be made of the two families which continued with the bilingual language project, including Japanese reading and writing, until the children finished high school.



Invisible work

This chapter is broader in its scope than previous chapters, both in terms of the time span covered — from pre-teen years to leaving home — and issues. The first section looks at a fundamental change; the growing independence of the children. The second section explores the changes in family relations which coincided with this growing independence, not just in terms of relations between parents and children, but more particularly between the parents themselves. Aspirations and identity are the subject matter of section three, and particular attention is given to mothers, who were prompted by the growing independence of their children to re-examine their future. In the final section questions of ethnicity are considered, drawing on observations from this and previous chapters.

.

Teen years — growing independence of children, growing time for mothers

. Growing independence of children The teen years (and even pre-teen years) were marked by considerable changes inside the families with older children. Unlike the previous periods, in which changes were brought about by outside factors such as entering school, changes in this stage were brought about by the fact that the children were growing up, and began to develop a critical perspective towards their mother’s approach to childrearing (cf. Apter, 1990, on ‘mother-blaming’). There were two main changes; children started to try to extend their independence and autonomy, and mothers’ life focus began to shift from their child to themselves. The process and the timing were, of course, different in different families — in many cases there were still younger children, hence issues discussed in the previous chapter were still being addressed — and the link with language use was not straight forward. It was not, for instance, a matter of children rejecting the mother’s language project as an act of teenage rebellion. There were, however, subtle links with language use, which will be noted later. First, a number of parents with older children commented on their growing independence: When children grow older, they start leaving their parents. Until then, you put everything into it (childrearing), and they react in the same way. Then you do it in the same way, but their response decreases. It appears gradually in their attitudes in everyday life. Then you realise, well, she is old enough, so she doesn’t need my help in this any more. (Mrs Sorensen)

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

To some extent the process began with early schooling, and it began to intensify in the pre teen years, in some cases with increasing friction: Elizabeth is now 11, and tends to be irritable. I blame it on hormones (L). Unfortunately, I have a short temper, too. I tend to shout, which doesn’t work with Elizabeth. Ellen (4) listens, but Elizabeth just shuts up. I try to persuade them first, but eventually I just shout. At least that normally stops what they are doing, and I get their attention, and then I can start talking and explaining things a little better. I know it’s a failing, and I try not to, but at least I don’t hit them. I hit the furniture occasionally when I’m really mad. I went to the doctor around Christmas. I punched the sofa and broke my knuckle. (Mr Findlay) In the past, Steve could convince Maya, or at least he thought he could. Now she answers back, and says ‘I don’t think so.’ So he tries to convince her, and the conversation ends up again with ‘Well, but I don’t think so.’ (Mrs Sorensen)

Mr Findlay was the main discipline negotiator around the house. Many of the other fathers, however, appeared not to be so involved in the fine negotiations over what their child should be doing around the house or where they could go and for how long, but they did sense the changes from conversation. As their child grew older, most parents started to realise that they were becoming less pliant. They could no longer control them as they wished. They had to recognise the child’s character, and to come to terms with it, even if this meant giving up some of their aspirations, such as reading and writing Japanese. Whether the family or the mother allowed their child’s independence to expand as much as the child wanted, however, depended on how they looked at the child, as well as their priorities in family life. Where Japanese was not a high or consistent priority, reading and writing in particular were dropped. Families with difficult children experienced the difficulties before the teenage years, and this was a factor in their giving up teaching Japanese reading and writing as well (e.g. Rankin). Some who had continued up to this stage stopped, as they recognised that the children needed more time and space to develop their own independence, which the Japanese project might stifle (e.g. Nichols). Nigel Nichols remarked how his children had been happy to get up to study Japanese for an hour in the mornings, but how his daughter had become much more resistant. Natsuko Nichols finally stopped, recognising that: There is a limit to controlling children. It’s not going to work if you think they are a part of yourself. (Mrs Nichols)

In some cases (Hopes, Sorensens), however, there were strong personal or interpersonal reasons why the mothers continued. These families, significantly,





Invisible work

reported that they had not experienced strong resistance by children to parental authority. There may be different interpretations as to the direction of causation. To continue the project, mothers had to have a strong determination to control a significant amount of their child’s time. It may be that by being in control over that time, they were able to channel or modify a growing desire for independence on the part of their child. On the other hand, it may have been that those families were able to continue with the project because the children were not rebellious in nature, and did not push strongly for their own time and independence. . Growing time for mothers Where they had decided not to push ahead with reading and writing, and when their younger children began to gain more independence, at least in terms of use of time, mothers began to have more time on their hands. After the daily rush and bustle of early childrearing and early schooling, they entered a new stage of their life. The prospect of even greater independence on the part of their children raised the question of what they were going to do with and for themselves. The key issue in this stage was ‘finding a place’. Mothers who had organised their social world around the children’s needs, such as meeting other Japanese families regularly, found these networks shrinking as their children and made their own circle of friends. A sense of growing isolation gave an extra potency to this issue. As one mother, who had started working, observed: TO: What would it have been like if you were not working? There would have been no place to put my attention on. It would be so lonely, or empty… (Mrs Sorensen)

It was in this new stage that aspirations and questions of identity were reconsidered, as we shall see in Section 3.

. Evolving Family relationships . Relationships between mother, father and child The growing independence of children and the associated ‘negotiations’ (Mrs Thompson) naturally had an impact on family relationships.1 Adolescent years are reported as being the most stressful for various family relationships (Mackey and O’Brien, 1995; Vaillant and Vaillant, 1993). The changing nature of relations in participant families can be represented diagramatically (Figure 9–1).

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

A–1 Families with younger children

A–2 M

F

M

C

B–1 Families with older children with possible axis

F B–2

M

F

B–3 M

C

C–1

F

M

C

F

C

C–1 M

After children left home

C

F Hope, Sorensen

M

F Thompson

Note: M = mother; F = father; C = child(ren) Thickness of lines of triangle indicates strength of relationship; Line cutting triangle indicates formation of ‘axis’; Solid shade indicates child leaving home.

Figure 9.1 Changing family relations

The relations in the diagram are ideal-typical representations, are not exhaustive, and are based on interpretation rather than direct comments by the participants, but they do help to illustrate some important points.2 Whereas in the first stage (A) family relationships were generally not confrontational, with the increasing need for negotiation with children, there was a greater possibility of axes being formed, which became apparent during times of tension (B-1, B-2). In most cases, these axes were temporary, and not fixed, but in a few cases they became fixed, and a part of the family relations in general. In such cases, they were likely to influence the nature of relations in the next stage (C), when children left home, in a way that the parents themselves did not expect.





Invisible work

Tensions Not surprisingly, the language project accentuated the formation of motherchild axes, in some cases even during stage A, although again it is difficult to sort out cause and effect. In the Rankin’s case, Richard Rankin felt isolated from a very early stage. His wife had been a midwife, and felt no need for help when they had their first child. By the time they had their second child, and she felt she did need help, he was already distant. The language project, and his wife’s strong association with other Japanese families, intensified his sense of isolation. He felt that his wife’s cultural background was a factor: Japanese mothers devote themselves to their children at the expense of their husband.

To some extent, she agreed: In Japan, it’s divided. If you are doing what you should be doing as a mother, and he’s doing what he should be doing as a father, then everything is OK. But it’s not like that here. You need to have a direct relationship with your partner. (Mrs Rankin)

While he felt that she should have been focusing more attention on him, however, she felt the reverse: If it were in Japan, things would have been OK, because I would have paid a lot more attention to him, because he would have been a foreigner there. Here, I wanted him to give me a lot more attention and help. But it was not like the two of us helping each other. I was frustrated because I felt I wasn’t getting what I should have been getting. (Mrs Rankin)

The Rankins separated before reaching stage B, but for some families there were similar latent tensions which did surface during stage B, even if not so forcefully, and more gradually. Tensions arose over the question of compromise. Some mothers felt that they had made most of the compromises to date, by leaving Japan and coming and living in their husband’s country, and by devoting years to the care of children while their husbands advanced their careers. They expected their husbands to recognise this, and to express this, at least in the willingness to compromise and back them up. Often they felt it did not happen. In the case of the Hopes and the Sorensens, the perceived lack of compromise on the part of the father strengthened mother-child relationships. These coincidentally, were the families which persisted in the language project, including reading and writing, until their child was eighteen years old. With the Nichols, however, the opposite happened. Mrs Nichols was reluctant to let her adolescent daughter go freely to the nearby city. She did not think

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

she was ready for independence, and experiences with step brothers and sisters in Japan had engendered in her a strong sense of personal propriety, which she hoped to teach her daughters. To father and children, however, she was not in touch with UK society, or what British teenagers want to do with their growing independence. It appeared to them that she was trying to impose values from another society onto them. (As with Richard Rankin, they attributed her views and behaviour to her ‘culture’ rather than her personal background.) As a result, she felt marginalised and devalued in the discussions and negotiations regarding her daughter’s growing independence in the UK. Similar pressures had led to the abandonment of Japanese reading and writing. Mrs Nichols encouraged her children to learn Chinese characters by constant repetition, ‘learning with their body’ as a Chinese acquaintance of hers had done. Her husband, however, considered this an extremely old fashioned way of teaching, appropriate for a Japanese way of education, perhaps, but not for their children in the UK. I like the children to speak Japanese. I would like them to read, but… (Mr Nichols)

Use of Japanese was very important to Natsuko Nichols, however, to prevent her from becoming isolated. Her daughters were very active in after-school activities at a well-known independent school. She was ambivalent about this. On the one hand, she herself had not had the opportunity to take part in ‘high culture’ as she called it, and was glad her daughters had the opportunity. On the other, it reduced the time she could spend with them, and she was disappointed when they took Latin as an optional third language (French was the second). In her view, Japanese would have been much more useful, and she was disappointed in her husband for not encouraging them to do so. One mother, speaking anonymously, said she had little time in which to communicate with her children in Japanese (‘They leave at 8:00, come home at 6:00, then homework and bed’), so she looked forward to family holidays, when she could spend time with them, and use Japanese with them. However, her mother-in law had started to join them (at the invitation of her husband), and so they became English speaking holidays, and she felt she could not relax. The same experience was mentioned by three other mothers. For these mothers, speaking was the last line in the bilingual project, and the chance even to maintain this was threatened by such happenings. In addition, it was a chance to spend time with their husbands, which was missing in daily life. The invitation to the mother-in-law to join them symbolised a lack of recognition of their





Invisible work

needs by their husband. Junko Jeffries remarked that everywhere she went, she felt like an outsider, except in her own home. She needed that space, and holidays were an extension of it. (Interestingly, these four mothers saw such relations between mother-in law and their husband as a generation problem, in which the mothers-in-law were strongly attached to their sons because they were housewives. They commented that they did not want to become like that.)

Variations In some cases, husband-wife bonds became stronger as their children entered their teen years, especially when the children got into trouble (Thompsons). While Japanese Supplementary Schools (JSS) caused stresses and isolation of the father in the Hope family, as we shall see below, it actually gave the Appleby parents a chance to go out into town together and renew their ties while their children were studying on Saturday morning. They stopped JSS when their children entered high school because they felt the children needed more time. As was described in the socio-historical sections of previous chapters, older mothers in general appeared to have a more relaxed approach to childrearing than younger mothers, most used English, and fathers tended to be more involved, hence the potential for the formation of axes reinforcing motherchild relations and isolating the father was reduced. That was certainly the case in the Cook family. In two other cases (Rogers, Waring) the mothers had started out as single mothers, and had married later. While their bonds with their children could be expected to be reasonably strong, they did not have the same expectations — of recognition of their sacrifices, for instance — towards their husbands, and there appeared to be fewer stresses in this regard. Trying to predict what will happen to the younger families is a matter of conjecture, but given the tendency toward pro-activist mothering and Japanese use, as well as a clear division of labour, the potential for later stresses in husband-wife relationships appears to be greater. . Completing the project The Hopes and the Sorensens are of particular interest because they were the only families to continue reading and writing until their children were eighteen, thus completing the bilingual language project. They provide clear examples of the intertwining of family relations and the language project as the children get older, and the stresses which the project may bring, although I am not suggesting that they are typical of all families in which Japanese is pursued to an advanced stage.

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

Hope family Harumi Hope continued working after her oldest child Patrick was born, and employed an English-speaking child minder to take care of her children. She spoke Japanese with her children, but in a relaxed way, until Patrick started JSS. To keep up, she had to spend a lot of time with him, helping him with his homework, particularly when the workload increased when he was eleven. At the same time, Patrick started to resist. This was the point at which the Nichols and the Applebys stopped, but Harry Hope stood firm, and supported his wife, on the grounds that it was for Patrick’s benefit. Instead of just speaking Japanese, the parents’ new goal for their children became passing A-level Japanese. Although there were times they would probably have loved not to go to Japanese school, loved not to learn Japanese, would love to throw those books into the dustbin, that was not an option. They didn’t have that option because Dad said so. (Mr Hope)

As a result: The boys don’t like me particularly well (L). They’ve got what we call a ‘chip on their shoulder’ and they dislike Dad. That’s because Dad always says ‘Look, do this and do that.’ Every teenage son goes through this period. But the chip is lasting a bit too long, and I’m getting a bit … annoyed with it. (Mr Hope)

Not only was Harry Hope forced to become the ‘baddy’ in the family to support the Japanese language project, but he had to give up plans for outings he wanted the family to go on because of the JSS. His wife, by contrast, had forged a much closer relationship with her sons. She was forced to spend an hour or so most nights with them — three hours according to Harry Hope, ‘ night’ — but through the materials they brought back from JSS, she was able to share a lot about her own childhood experiences. Harry Hope’s isolation was intensified by the constant intervention of his Japanese mother-in-law — the ‘distant enemy’ as he referred to her — who was constantly sending faxes (‘in a form I can’t read’), food and presents, including money for a new car for Patrick. There was, he feared, a Japanese block developing in his house. Whereas he wanted the boys to learn to stand on their own feet, he saw them being dragged into a relationship of dependence. Harumi, on the other hand, thought they would learn to stand on their own feet in due course, after they had graduated and started working. I tend to back the children up, so these days the relationship between Harry and me is a bit chilly. I just can’t help being like this, putting priority on the children, because I was brought up like that. A father is someone who is busy with his work, and doing what he wants… (Mrs Hope)





Invisible work

Although Harumi attributed this tendency to her own upbringing, undoubtedly the language project, which required her to spend so much time with her sons, contributed. The result was a loss of family life, or at least time shared by husband and wife. We hardly went to the cinema, or for a meal as a couple. On weekdays I left the children with someone else, so I wanted to be with the children as much as possible on weekends and holidays. (Mrs Hope)

When talking about her future, she mused about going to France or back to Japan to live for a while after the children were ‘independent.’

Sorensen family The Sorensen family shares many of the features of the Hope family, although with different nuances. Maya was an only child, and was not difficult. Her father did not need to push her to study. However, he was uncompromising in many matters, which distanced him from his daughter, and from his wife. Sachiko Sorensen felt her daughter was her only ‘emotional support’, and the bond was strengthened through the Japanese language project. Maya described her mother as her ‘best friend.’ I feel my father is a father, and that’s fine. He is a nice person, and I respect him, but he is a man of discipline, and doesn’t have much emotion as well. My mother is warm and has a lot of emotion, and I like that kind of person. (Maya Sorensen)

Sachiko Sorensen felt she was rather isolated living in a foreign country, and although ideally she would have liked her husband to relieve the isolation, she felt there were things that ‘didn’t fit well’, that no matter how much she explained, he could not understand. And she, too, felt he was uncompromising, for instance in his refusal even to discuss sending Maya to an independent secondary school, which he called a ‘bourgeois’ institution. By contrast, and because she had such close interaction with her daughter, and in Japanese, she felt there was an unspoken understanding between them. Steve Sorensen was aware of this, but was reluctant to try to change the situation, which would have meant creating discord by undermining the language project of his wife and daughter. To some extent, because of this situation, his was a silenced voice. He commented: Not that our bond was weak from the beginning, but it was like a stronger bond between mother and daughter, making our bond weaker. That’s the only negative side of it (language project).

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

He commented that his wife might have been ‘a bit closer to her child than other British mothers’, but he did not really link the situation with her cultural or ethnic background. (Both he and his daughter thought Sachiko Sorensen’s strong-mindedness was atypical of Japanese people.) And although he recognised that he was often left out, he viewed it as his problem. Maya, however, noted that her mother had sometimes said she would like to return to Japan when she (Maya) had left home, and that perhaps she would join her. It was ironic that the support offered by the husbands, which was necessary for the Japanese language project’s success, actually exacerbated their isolation, and increased the possibility of them being left on their own in later years.

. Aspirations and identity As the children grew older, the mothers had more time and space to think about themselves. At the same time, they became more exposed as ‘individuals’, not as parents, to the outside world. Whereas previously the demands of childrearing seemed to have suppressed the mothers’ aspirations as individuals or the creation of them, they now started to face what they wanted to do and who they wanted to be in their lives. In this section I would like to consider first the aspirations and identity of the mothers, and then the fathers and children. . Mothers The way mothers felt about their identity changed over time. Some (Mrs Nichols, Sharpe and Jeffries) recalled their early efforts to ‘become British’, which lasted for up to five years. After this period, they did a 180 degree turn, and became determined to live with a strong awareness of being Japanese. This did not mean rejecting things related to the UK, but it meant keeping some distance with what they thought of as ‘British ways’ or British people. Although not as extreme, many other mothers talked about their changing perceptions of who they were. Making generalisations is not easy, but there were some common themes.

‘Finding a place’ ‘Adaptation’ is not an appropriate concept to analyse the mothers’ experiences because it suggests a single direction of change and is not dialectical (Woollett et.al., 1994). It was not a process by which mothers became progressively





Invisible work

adapted until they reached the goal of being ‘well adapted.’ Tae Thompson (who had lived in the UK for 20 years) remarked: The longer I am here, the more I become unsure about where I belong. (Mrs Thompson)

The issue was less one of ‘adjusting’ or ‘adapting’, but whether or not the mothers ‘found a place’ for themselves. ‘Finding a place’ does not mean finding a desirable place to live, but a place they felt they belonged, or one they felt they could commit their lives to. And whether they found that place or not depended on their reference points, including: 1. what they had had in Japan (in terms of interpersonal relations and work) 2. experiences in the UK 3. affiliations (directly linked to work) a. What they had had in Japan. Every mother had a variety of experiences before she came to live in the UK, which formed a base to understand and interpret her new experiences. She was not starting life in a new country from scratch. There were two main domains of prior experience in Japan which appeared to be particularly important points of reference: interpersonal relationships with family in Japan; and experiences as an adult in Japan, particularly work experiences. The combination of these formed a framework which the mothers referred to in different ways in specific life stages. Relationships were not with ‘Japan’ per se, but with family and friends in Japan, i.e. through a lens of specific interpersonal relationships. When their children grew older, these relationships were also important. Those mothers with good relationships and sources of support — often emotional — in Japan (Mrs Rankin, Appleby, Emerson) started to think again of what it was about these relationships and the environment that enabled them to ‘be themselves’, particularly when they felt that their social networks in the UK did not enable them to have this experience. For Chizuko Cook, the possibility of re-establishing these relationships, the possibility of work, and the fact that her daughters had all gone to Japan (see Subsection 3 below), made her seriously contemplate returning. On the other hand, those whose links with their family in Japan were strained, or did not allow them to feel comfortable (Mrs Inwood, Ericson) used this as a negative reference point, and eliminated the option of returning, thus making them more committed to creating a place for themselves in the UK. Even more important in this new stage, however, were their experiences as

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

an adult, and in particular their experiences of work. Some mothers had had very positive experiences of work in Japan (Mrs Rankin, Nichols, Welsh). In the case of Natsuko Nichols, this positive experience, and frustration at not finding an equivalent job in the UK, also led her to decide to return to Japan. She recalled of her nursing days: They were the happiest years of my whole life of forty years. There was real interaction. It wasn’t for money but to help people that I worked at that hospital. (Mrs Nichols)

On the other hand, those whose experience of working in Japan was largely negative (Mrs Inwood, Thompson, Naylor, Moss, Corby) did not have this as a positive reference point. They still wanted to work, but not necessarily at the same job, and not necessarily with the same expectations. Said Ikuko Inwood, also of her nursing days: I became disillusioned with nursing in Japan. At general hospitals I only did menial jobs, and at university hospitals, intensive care patients were used as experimental objects. (Mrs Inwood)

In short, as they now contemplated their identity, and sought to ‘find a place’, their experiences in Japan, both in terms of family relations and work, became reference points. Some of those for whom the combination was overwhelmingly positive, who had had a place where they were happy, and felt able or capable (empowered) expressed a strong desire to return to Japan. Where the combination was negative, and they were unhappy, and were made to feel unable (disempowered) in Japan, and where they could see their teenage friends struggling in mid-life there, they seemed to be more likely to seek to ‘create a place’ in the UK. b. Early experiences in the UK (leading to current situation). Early experiences in the UK had a lasting impact on mothers and their aspirations, particularly where these experiences were perceived as being negative. As noted in Chapters 6 and 7, some mothers (Mrs Sharpe, Jeffries, Nichols) tried to ‘become British’ after arriving in the UK, but disappointments then pushed them in the opposite direction, and in the case of Junko Jeffries and Sumie Sharpe, from using English to a determination to use Japanese. Even more critical was how isolated mothers felt during the early months or years. Isolation is the converse of ‘finding a place’ and it prompted different reactions, suggesting that negative early experiences did not necessarily make ‘finding a place’ in the UK impossible, but heightened awareness of its importance. Harumi Hope, for





Invisible work

instance, felt quite isolated as her husband was away for several weeks at a time. Although she was not committed to a professional career, she decided she had to find a job. She kept this job (in a Japanese company) because despite the pressures of work, mothering and raising her child in Japanese, with considerable homework from a JSS, at least she had found a place in which she was not isolated or powerless. Sachiko Sorensen also felt isolated, and her husband was often away. However, she was not able to get a job. Finding a place for her meant forging a close bond with her daughter, which her Japanese project cemented. This close bond had continued, although she was able to find a part time job when her daughter was 16. She had not worked full time in Japan before, and did not realise until she had found the job how satisfying it could be in terms of ‘finding a place’: I did not know it before because I had never worked, but the job satisfaction is great. I know it now. (Mrs Sorensen)

c. Affiliations. Early experiences, particularly of isolation, were powerful, but they continued through subsequent periods. One type of isolation was geographical isolation, which reduced opportunities to meet other Japanese people, and opportunities for finding a job. Tami Thrush (54) coped with this, it seemed, by coming to see herself as a domestic person, even though she had been quite outgoing in her youth in Japan. Although she was very cautious when talking about her own aspirations, she did check the classified advertisements in a UK-based Japanese newspaper to see what kind of jobs might possibly be available (if one lived in the right place). In response to a question about what she might do differently if she were to return to her youth in Japan, she replied immediately: I would like to find a job I could keep on doing, even if I were married. (Mrs Thrush)

But it was also possible to be isolated in the middle of metropolitan areas with large concentrations of Japanese people, even with networks of ‘friends’ or acquaintances, if these were not felt to be deep, and especially if the mothers felt they did not really belong there (Natsuko Nichols, Emi Emerson). As with work experiences, perceptions of relationships were influenced by what the mothers had experienced in Japan. These relationships in Japan were qualitatively different in that they were often formed before children were born, and involved frequent interaction, as Junko Jeffries noted of her student day friendships. Relationships formed after the children were born tended to be less close

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

or relaxed, quite independent of any difficulties mothers experienced by being in the UK. Yet while this increased the possibility of disappointment for some mothers, others did not express dissatisfaction with interpersonal relations in the UK, or were glad to keep their distance from relationships in Japan.

Work With more time on their hands, and a desire to ‘find a place’, the mothers increasingly thought about work, particularly those mothers who felt isolated or powerless, incompetent or lacking confidence through their childrearing experiences in the UK. There was another reason, which several of the mothers (Mrs Sharpe, Kirkland, Nichols) referred to. Being a good mother in the earlier stages had meant devoting most of their time to raising their children, and to taking care of language needs and schooling needs. Now, however, their relationship with their children was changing. As their children began to grow more independent, these mothers began to wonder how their children could continue to respect them if they stayed at home, without a job. In order to maintain the respect of their children, they now felt that they had to get out of the house, whereas earlier they had to go into it. I wanted to be respected as a mother, and that meant going out into society, and working. Some people are happy just with their husband and children, but I want to be satisfied with my life. (Mrs Kirkland) I want to offer my children something other than being a mother. (Mrs Nichols) If I had stayed at home, taking care of Fred (son, 13) 100%, I would have been a mother with no hard experience. There would have been a lot less I could offer him. I couldn’t have drawn out his potential. (Mrs Sharpe)

All except three of the mothers with teenage or older children worked (Table 9–1), and those three expressed a desire to work, although indirectly in the case of Tami Thrush. ‘Finding a place’ was an overarching reason, but there were differences between the mothers. First, some of the older mothers thought it natural to work. Being an adult meant working (Mrs Findlay, Waring, Thompson), or being able to stand on one’s feet financially (Ikuko Inwood). Second, it was important as a means of relating to people outside the home (Harumi Hope). Third, it was important for self actualisation (Natsuko Nichols, Wakako Waring). And fourth, there was satisfaction in the job itself (Sachiko Sorensen). In practice, mothers worked for a combination of these reasons. For Tae





Invisible work

Thompson, it was both a matter of financial necessity, and of importance for her mental health. Natsuko Nichols’ mother had always stressed the importance of working as a root of identity and independence to her daughters, as a result of the vulnerabilities she herself suffered in her marriage. Sachiko Sorensen’s mother, on the other hand, was told by her father to get a job at the outbreak of World War II, and she (mother) in turn had stressed its importance to Sachiko. Table 9.1 Mothers’ employment (families with children over 13 years old) family name

first child’s age

mothers’ employment * at the time of interview

Japanese speaking + reading / writing

Sorensen Hope (mixed) Manni

19 18 13

part-time full-time part-time

Japanese speaking

Rogers (mixed) Welsh Appleby (mixed) Nichols Sharpe (mixed)

23 18 16 14 13

part-time full-time part-time not in paid employment part-time

English speaking

Cook Thompson Thrush Waring

28 18 18 16

not in paid employment part-time not in paid employment full-time

In brief, finding a place was linked to finding a job, for various reasons, related to past experiences in Japan, current circumstances, and changing relationships with children. This aspiration is particularly worth noting in view of strong images about gender differences and social divisions of labour in Japan, in which women are portrayed as contented housewives devoted solely to the upbringing of their children (cf. Chapter 2). Closer investigation would show, as has been mentioned several times, that historical and situational circumstances strongly influence gender roles and women’s work aspirations in Japan. Here the situation of the mothers encouraged strong aspirations to work. However, where earlier positive work experiences in Japan were not matched, or the desire for self actualisation was not fulfilled, these aspirations were frustrated, encouraging some mothers to consider returning to Japan to re-establish themselves, particularly if their children went to Japan.

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

. Fathers There is much less to say about fathers with regards aspirations and identity, for two main reasons. First, fathers were only interviewed once, and there were many other issues to discuss with the fathers of older children relating to the language project, raising children and interpersonal relations. Second, however, the growing independence of children did not raise questions of aspirations and identity in the acute way that it did for mothers.3 For one thing, their perception of the changes was probably less direct, as a result of them not being the primary carer. One mother remarked: I think they (fathers) experience it differently, because the child first starts to refuse everyday interference, and the person who does it is mothers. Men don’t feel the significance (of change in that area). (Mrs Sorensen)

In addition, they were already working, in their home country, often with extensive social networks. They seemed to have their ‘place.’ The leaving of home by children was perhaps a more significant period, but this had only happened in two families (Cook and Sorensen: in the Roger’s case the son was commuting to university from home). Cyril Cook described the leaving of his youngest daughter as ‘traumatic’ personally, but his wife remarked that: He has his work and he will be happy to continue like this until he is 80. I think men tend to cut themselves off from children once they become independent, then wives come first. (Mrs Cook)

Indeed, some fathers did expect more time for activities with their wife, while their wife was thinking of finding her place — how she could go out to work, or indeed return to Japan (Chizuko Cook, Sachiko Sorensen). . Children There is similarly little to say about aspirations and identity directly from interviews with older children. Although nine interviews were conducted, there were a number of difficulties, such as parents being eager for me to interview their children in Japanese, while the childrens’ ability to express complex concepts was limited. However, a number of observations can be made, particularly relating to Japan. Many parents thought that as their children grew older, they were becoming increasingly ‘British’; their experiences and friends and job prospects would be rooted in the UK. A concern of all mothers, whether they spoke





Invisible work

Japanese or English with their children, was that their children did not come to dislike Japan. In many cases, they appeared to have succeeded, sometimes unexpectedly. As the children grew older and started actively forging their own identities, a number were attracted to Japan. The Cooks raised their three daughters in English only. When they all visited Japan one year, the oldest two, who had finished high school, stayed there. The youngest returned to Britain to finish high school and then joined her sisters. Significantly, they had a number of relatives in Japan, whereas on their father’s side in the UK, they had few. The eldest daughter married a Japanese and had small children, while the younger two daughters were working there. Their mother wanted to join them. The children of both families which continued with Japanese speaking only had gone on to study Japanese at university. Graham Welsh went to Japan for a three month placement in his gap year, and had thoroughly enjoyed it because he could speak Japanese. The only other child to have left home at the time of the interviews was studying linguistics at university. Since she had not only spoken Japanese, but studied reading and writing right through, there was no point in her studying it at university. She, too, had many relatives in Japan, and few on her father’s side in the UK: In Japan I have six cousins, a grandmother, and aunts and uncles. It’s very lively. Here it’s very quiet. (Maya Sorensen)

She particularly appreciated being able to speak Japanese to interact with her relatives, and was planning to gain an ESL (English as a Second Language) teaching qualification so that she could go to Japan after graduating to teach English. She commented: My mother is looking forward to it. She always wanted to go back to Japan when I got older. She didn’t want to come to the UK, and wasn’t happy when she came. My Dad isn’t at all happy about that idea. I think he’s disappointed.

The Thrush children, by contrast, had few relatives in Japan, and not only grew up using English only, but far removed from other Japanese families or influence. They appeared to have little interest in Japan. It was still too early to see how most of the children would develop their own sense of identity, particularly ethnic identity, but it is worth noting that a number of the older children had developed an active interest in their mother’s country. Those who went to Japan were no doubt not just exploring the country, but incorporating that experience into the development of their ethnic

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

identity. It is also important to note that for them, as for mothers, concrete interpersonal relations — with relatives — were important in stimulating and sustaining this interest.

. Ethnicity Questions of ethnicity have been referred to at various points in the past five chapters. Here I would like to consider explicitly how ethnicity is or is not important in family dynamics and language use, bringing together various observations made so far. . Situational ethnicity To the outside observer, many aspects of family relations and language use in the 28 families might be attributed to ethnicity. In particular, the behaviour of many of the mothers — such as staying at home and looking after children full time, the ‘pro-activist’ mothering tendency of many of the younger mothers, the way Japanese-speaking mothers organised their social world to maximise interaction with other Japanese families, some spending long hours doing Kumon and JSS homework, some maintaining strong links with Japan in some cases, and especially the apparent tendency of forging strong links with children at the expense of relations with husbands — may be attributed to their ‘Japaneseness’ by outside observers. The analysis so far suggests that this would be simplistic. What emerges is a much more nuanced picture, in which the situational context has to be understood, and identity has to be seen as something fluid and flexible, with different aspects emerging at different times. Differences between the mothers would also suggest problems in ethnic labelling. The initial division of labour, in which childrearing took place, resulted from various ‘structural’ circumstances, in which the mothers found it was difficult to find a job they valued, unlike their husbands who faced no language, qualification recognition or other practical handicap. Faced with uncertainties about giving birth and having children in an unfamiliar setting, the mothers decided that they should concentrate fully on the task at hand, at least initially. There was a tendency for the younger mothers to choose to speak Japanese with their children, but differences with older mothers were linked to the growing acceptability — even desirability — of raising children bilingually, and the reasons mothers gave had more to do with a desire to be able to communicate





Invisible work

with their children in their own language, a personal need, rather than an abstract attachment to ‘Japan’ and things Japanese. Having made that decision, they had to arrange their social lives and networks to achieve that objective. Such mothers were apt to be exposed to ideas promoting pro-activist mothering — ‘child first’ childrearing and ‘the earlier the better’ language ‘input’ — but the tendency was also influenced by other factors, particularly the nature of the support available. The mothers’ anxiety that their children make a good start at school might be considered an ethnic trait — the Japanese ‘education mother’ phenomenon — but as we saw, they were especially concerned that their child should not start behind or be put at a social disadvantage because of their language project. As their childrens’ English reading and writing skills developed at school, and as the children became busier with extra-curricular activities, they were faced with difficult choices. Those who aimed for full bilingual competence, including reading and writing, had to create the time needed, in conjunction with the support available (Kumon and JSS), which led to family stresses, and isolation of the father, but again this is not simply attributable to ethnicity. And finally, as the mothers contemplated their future as their children became more independent, the importance of ‘finding a place’ emerged, which took various forms according to their circumstances, but often meant finding work, if they had not already done that. Those mothers who had had fulfilling work experiences in Japan which they were unlikely to match in the UK, or who for reasons such as isolation were unable to ‘find a place’ in which they felt competent and at ease, were likely to think of returning to Japan, but this cannot be described simply as an ethnic proclivity. To the mothers, ‘Japan’ was not an abstract entity, nor did they feel any attachment to what may be called Japanese ‘high culture.’ What informed their views of Japan, and whether or not they wanted to maintain links, were personal relations, and memories (or lack of them) of seasonal events and festivals which they had experienced when they were children. Those who had happy memories and warm relations wanted their children to experience them as well. For Harumi Hope, one of the most satisfying things about her children going to JSS was that the children learned games that she used to enjoy, and about seasonal events that she used to enjoy, which she could enjoy with her children. Maybe it’s my home country’s culture, things like playing hyakunin isshu (a card game played at New Year) together. They were playing it at JSS so I said to them let’s play it at home, too. I appreciate that very much. (Mrs Hope)

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

Families in which both parents live in their country of origin might take these games and events for granted, but they were not easily recreated in the families in this study. And where the mother did not have happy childhood memories (Ikuko Inwood, Etsuko Ericson) — where her dominant memories were of parents always working, and family stresses, for instance — she did not seek to introduce these aspects of Japan to her children. . Explanation of last resort It is important to note (because it shows how ‘internal’ views can differ greatly from those from the ‘outside looking in’) that in general, fathers refrained from using the word ‘culture’ when they were talking about their families. In some cases this might have been because their wife did not seem to fit stereotypical images of the ‘Japanese woman’ (Sorensen, Appleby, Moss, Thompson). More often, however, it was probably because they had some understanding of the situational context in which their wife was behaving. We have also seen, however, that differences in the way husbands and wives viewed issues like language acquisition and early education arose from the pronounced division of labour in many families, and from different sources of information and social networks. Husbands were more likely to see both majority and minority language acquisition as a natural process, whereas their wives saw it as requiring considerable effort and organisation. This effort, and many of their concerns, were largely invisible to most husbands. In some cases, the husband attributed this to cultural differences. This was most likely to happen when stresses and strains mounted; cultural or ethnic differences were introduced to explain intractable differences between them. As we saw in this chapter, for instance, ethnicity was seen as a reason for husband-wife difficulties in the Rankin family. Regarding language, Richard Rankin commented: I know several Japanese-English families, and their language from day one was Japanese. So automatic. Even an absolutely stupid person learns a language without a problem. It’s something different from intelligence… Children naturally learn both languages. (Mr Rankin)

He could not understand the fuss his wife made about organising the childrens’ social life to gain exposure to Japanese, or her concerns about their language development. Ultimately, he put it down to his wife’s ethnic tendencies: Japanese mothers devote themselves to children at the expense of fathers.





Invisible work

And as for the difference between ‘image’ and ‘reality’: Men foolishly think Japanese women are lovely, and only later discover…

In the Hope family, too, Harry attributed his wife’s emphasis on ‘study, study, study, study, study, study, study, study’ to her ethnic background, and also the constant intervention of his mother-in-law — ‘the distant enemy’ — to a lack of inter-generational independence characteristic of families in Japan. He was reluctant to respond to his wife’s request to convert the attic into an extra room because he expected his children to leave home when they left school, and he feared she might perpetuate this aspect of Japanese society: Harumi has always asked for another room to be built upstairs. I’ve always said no. In this country, when children become independent, they leave home. And that’s what I expect them to do. If you are in Japan, your mother or father stay in the same house. It doesn’t happen in this country. No, no. Thank God! (Mr Hope)4

Chiaki Corby saw this difference as an advantage of living in the UK. Children were expected to become independent and not to take care of their parents. She said that was how she intended to raise her children, maintaining a good relationship, but at a distance. (In this context, it will be recalled that a number of Japanese mothers expressed frustration at the opposite situation; their husband’s mother-in-law being too close, or going on holidays with them, undermining their family autonomy and the chance for them to relax. They tended to interpret this as a generational phenomenon rather than a cultural one.) In passing, I would like to mention briefly the ethnic background of the fathers. One or two fathers themselves had an ethnic minority background, which they mentioned in the context of bilingual childrearing. Nick Naylor was black, and was disappointed that his parents did not teach him their native Pangwa. My mother did not teach us Pangwa, and I felt that I was left out when people gathered and spoke it. I felt I was on the outside. If our children didn’t learn Japanese, I’d feel sorry for them when they go to Japan. (Mr Naylor)

Mark Manni, according to his wife, also regretted that he didn’t have a chance to learn Polish, his mother’s language, and was similarly enthusiastic about his children learning Japanese. But ethnic minority links were no guarantee that attitudes towards learning a minority language would be favourable. Ian Inwood’s mother was a Dutch Jew, and had to move around during World War II, learning several languages, which was very stressful. He was opposed to his children learning Japanese for this reason, but his wife was also opposed

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

because of her associations with Japan. He was closely involved in family matters, and they had developed a common understanding of reasons they wanted to avoid involvement with Japan, reinforced by their latest visit: When I visited Japan eight years ago Ikuko’s friends were young married couples, and I didn’t notice it so much as I did this time. Husbands and wives are living independent lives, and wives servicing husbands, like a servant. The wife’s position in the family is so low, and … this influences their relationship with their children. Mothers competitively push children to get success in exams, and it causes children stress. (Mr Inwood)

In this case, a shared view of ethnicity was developed which strengthened husband-wife relations. Other fathers were less forthright with their views on Japan and Japanese women (perhaps because they were being interviewed by one), but a number did make critical comments about Japanese men, some of whom were their colleagues. . Bringing up children A number of mothers and some fathers referred to different ways of bringing up children, sometimes expressed as a ‘British way’ and a ‘Japanese way’. For instance, Mr Andrews (reluctantly) attributed his wife’s extreme attention to cleanliness to her being Japanese: She is very keen on the cleanliness of the children. She is, in my opinion, overly worried about that… it’s to do with the culture. (Mr Andrews)

Aki Andrew’s explanation was quite different, it will be recalled. She reasoned that if she were in Japan, she would not have worried so much, but as she was in the UK, she did not feel confident, so she was susceptible to the warnings of the elderly neighbour to keep the children away from animal droppings, warnings by short-term Japanese residents about illnesses carried by the homeless, and so on. She had developed a fundamental mistrust of ‘British ways’ from what she thought was unhelpful advice from a health visitor, echoed by her husband, and treatment at a hospital of her son who had chronic colic and eczema. Most importantly, she perceived that she had no alternative because of a lack of support in her difficult times. Sometimes labels such as the ‘British way’ and ‘Japanese way’ were a shorthand for opposing constructs used by the mothers to indicate preferences. Some preferred the ‘Japanese way’, while others intensely disliked the ‘Japanese way’ and preferred the ‘British way’. What they meant by these labels, however,





Invisible work

varied quite widely. Asayo Avery and Michi Manni, for instance, preferred the ‘British way’ which they saw as more strict than the ‘Japanese way’, especially with regards time arrangements, including bed times. Choosing the ‘British way’ helped them in their efforts to teach their children Japanese, since children were expected to follow what their parents said. Tami Thrush, on the other hand, preferred the ‘Japanese way’ which was not so strict. Choosing the ‘Japanese way’ meant she could not push her children to do things including, ironically, speaking Japanese. Conversely, Ikuko Inwood saw the ‘Japanese way’ as strict and restricting childrens’ freedom, and the ‘British way’ as supporting her decision not to press the Japanese language onto her children. These comments were offered in response to a question from me. It is difficult to say how important they were in the way the mothers thought about childrearing. What they do show is that the mothers’ perceptions of ethnicity were strongly influenced by their own personal backgrounds, as were their decisions to opt for the ‘British way’ or the ‘Japanese way’. In this sense, they were constructing their own ethnicity in response both to past and present circumstances, rather than blindly obeying the codes of a homogeneous ethnic ‘stamp’. It is possible to talk about generalised ethnic tendencies in two senses. First, it might be argued that the pragmatic adaptability just described is in itself an ethnic characteristic of the Japanese (cf. Okita, 1996). And second, with regards family relations, it did seem as if the mothers had a different view of husband-wife relations than their partners, and attached less importance to them, although that does not mean that they necessarily expected particularly close relations with their children. (This expectation might be linked to observations of their own parents, in turn linked to a specific socio-historical context.) However, rather than stressing generalised ethnic tendencies, the interviews here point to the need to pay closer attention to situational ethnicity.

Conclusions This chapter considered later school years of the children, in which changes were brought about not so much by external factors, such as entering school, but by the fact that the children themselves were growing up. Growing independence of the children brought changes in family relations, including between the parents. While husband-wife relations were strengthened in some cases, in others old and new tensions surfaced. Wives were particularly sensitive to whether their husband recognised their situation (including the fact that they

 

Family relationships, identity and ethnicity

were the ones who had had to do most of the compromising to date), first in the context of negotiations with children, and also in their aspirations for work. With the growing independence of their children, they began to consider seriously the issue of ‘finding a place’, a place where they felt they belonged, that they were competent or empowered. Finding a place depended on the mother’s reference points, including what they had in Japan in terms of interpersonal relations and work, experiences in the UK and social affiliations. Work became an important issue. Where they could not find a place in work, some mothers began to consider returning to Japan, just as their husbands began to contemplate new relations with their wife as the children left home. This applied to both families in which the language project had been ‘completed’ (up to the end of high school), ironically where the husbands had offered considerable support and sacrifice to maintain the viability of the project. In these cases particularly strong mother-child links were forged, and mothers’ links to ‘Japan’ were maintained, increasing the feasibility of a return to Japan. Many of the changes in family relations and the accompanying questions of identity and ‘finding a place’ for mothers no doubt happen in non-intermarried and monolingual families. Intermarriage in which the wife lives in the husband’s country may amplify the changes, however, first because of the pronounced division of labour in many of the families (discussed in Chapter 7), which increases the potential for different understanding of what is happening, makes the growing independence of children a more pressing concern for mothers, intensifies concern about isolation, and makes the issue of ‘finding a place’ more pressing. Second, it makes the quest to ‘find a place’ at work problematic, given job-related difficulties, also noted in Chapter 7. Intertwined with this is a language element. Use of a second language — particularly Japanese, given the time and effort needed to learn to read and write — can subtly influence changing family relationships, may work to isolate the father, and in some cases, may increase the possibility of the mother ‘finding a place’ elsewhere. Given the limited number of post-parenting families in this study, these comments can only be tentative, but the nature of the issues is apparent enough. Culture and ethnicity as explanations of behaviour were perhaps deliberately downplayed in many families, except where intractable problems emerged, as an explanation of last resort. In some cases this was because the mothers were not considered ‘typical’ Japanese women (which perhaps says as much about stereotypes as it does about the mothers themselves), in some cases it was a strategy to avoid conflict, and in others because other, situational,





Invisible work

explanations were available. There were some references to ‘British ways’ and ‘Japanese ways’, especially with regards childrearing. These were generally shorthand categorisations for contrasting approaches, but the specific definitions varied widely according to the mother, as they were based on their own definitions (again, situational ethnicity). These findings are worth emphasising because of a tradition (referred to briefly in Chapter 2) of looking at intermarriage in terms of bringing together potentially contrasting cultures, whose characteristics are predetermined (according to often dated literature on national cultural tendencies), and studying the resulting problems’. The findings here suggest that this approach is methodologically problematic — certainly the literature on Japanese women would not suggest work aspirations which most of the older mothers had — and may reinforce stereotypes rather than provide a deeper understanding of intermarriage.

Notes . The changes described here correspond with those described by Mackey and O’Brien (1995: 120–21): ‘Adolescence is a turning point for children, a developmental transition from childhood to adulthood. It is also a transition for parents who are confronted with a different developmental agenda in their children and with an impending change in their marital relationships: they will soon be alone again.’ . As they are ideal-typical representations, and to avoid an oversimplistic representation of the families’ circumstances, I have not attempted to attach specific families to specific boxes. . Roberts and Zuengler, 1985, note that in general, fathers experience less change in the post-parental transition, reflecting the greater centrality of the parenting role to women, although there are considerable variations in fathers’ experiences. . Furedi’s (2001) research on ‘paranoid parenting’, featuring overprotective parents and prolonged adolescence and prolonged living at home in the UK, suggests that this is not only a cultural phenomenon, as assumed by Harry Hope, but a phenomenon of modern parenting.

 

Concluding discussion

Introduction This study has looked at childrearing in Japanese mother - British father intermarried families living in the UK, with a focus on language issues. In the concluding discussion I would like to reiterate some of the main findings and discuss their implications. I will do this under the headings of ‘illumination’ (cf. Finch, 1985) and ‘recognition’. The meaning of the former as used here is relatively straight forward—a key objective of social science research such as this is to illuminate, to enhance our understanding of the issues under investigation—but the latter is less obvious. It concerns the ‘so what?’ question, and argues for the importance of giving due recognition to the issues raised under ‘illumination’. Recognition is important in itself, and as a platform for effective support to be developed. Specifically it can lead to a shared commitment to the development of the project, as well as shared responsibility for the outcomes along the way. Under these two headings, I will start by making some observations about the appropriateness and significance of the research methods used in this study. Next I will consider some of the main findings, first in relation to the research questions, and then findings which emerged from the research itself. I will then consider the generalisability of the findings, demands of recognition, and potential contributions to the respective fields of family studies, ethnicity studies, and bilingualism studies.

.

Illumination

. Research methods As noted earlier, my objective in this study was not to make empirical generalisations, but rather theoretical generalisation, from which explanations of one



Invisible work

setting might be used to frame questions and generate insights for other settings (Mason, 1996: 154). I interpret this as meaning generalisations not just from the data generated, and interpretations of that data, but the way in which the data was generated as well, because the nature of the data is closely linked with the generation process. Very little research has been done on the long-term Japanese resident community in the UK, or Japanese - British intermarried families. Images are dominated by short-term residents, mostly businessmen sent by their company for a period of three to five years, and their families, as well as students. The distinction is important, but it is not always made. Emi Emerson’s complaint (chapter 6, section 3) that her health visitor failed to diagnose her daughter’s moderate learning difficulties because she compared her with short-term Japanese resident children in the area, is entirely plausible. It was necessary, therefore, to undertake an exploratory questionnaire survey, to find out more about Japanese – British intermarried families, and to concentrate on Japanese mother – British father families, which is the most common combination. The findings of the survey will not be repeated here, but they did suggest, amongst other things, a variety of language use patterns in the respondent families, that in a significant number of cases these had changed over time, and from the open questions, that there were complex reasons for this. This diversity and complexity had to be accounted for, not swept aside. Another finding was that there were systematic differences—a tendency towards English use in families with older mothers, and with older children, and towards Japanese language use in families with younger mothers and younger children. This was anticipated from my earlier small-scale study (Okita, 1996), but it, too, needed to be addressed. To do this, it was clear that I needed tools which did not treat the families—especially the mothers—as a homogeneous group. The survey was able to provide ‘what’- type of information, but only limited information on why and how. For these, a qualitative approach was needed, namely in-depth, semi-structured interviews. The objective was to produce a ‘depth and roundedness of understanding’ rather than a ‘broad understanding of surface patterns’, and ‘data generation’ rather than ‘data collection’ (Mason, 1996). In order to move beyond a static understanding of parental values, childrearing and language choice and use, to incorporate socio-historical and other contextual dimensions which may change over time, the decision was made to adopt a ‘life history’ approach. In retrospect, this was a vital decision, as it made it possible to explore how these various dimensions came together

 

Concluding discussion

and interacted to produce the behaviour and interpretations provided by the participants. I was particularly anxious to avoid a crude cultural/cultural conflict approach, which studies of both intermarriage and Japanese women are prone to. By crude, I mean an approach in which the data is only superficially generated by the participants, and which relates the data back to uncontextualised cultural concepts. The mothers in this study might superficially appear to be very ‘Japanese’ by accepting a breadwinner - home-maker division of labour, concentrating on raising their children, being very anxious about their education, and so on. As we have seen, however, the reasons for this often had little to do with ‘culture’, and there were marked differences between the mothers. It was important to go beyond superficial data generation, to seek to find the issues often buried under everyday life. Key interview questions became: ‘How did you come to think like that, I wonder.’ ‘How did/do you feel about it?’

This enabled the informants to participate more fully, bringing in observations which may not have seemed directly relevant, providing a fuller understanding. It also signaled to the informants that I was interested in them and their experiences, and not just what information they could provide for my research questions. As one mother expressed at the end of her interview: Come to think of it... I thought since I would become a full time housewife, I would teach the children Japanese. Until then, I didn’t realise how important Japanese was. You helped me to go through it again, so I managed to realise how I felt then... (Mrs Sharpe; Mrs Jeffries made a similar comment.)

The life-course perspective helped to show unambiguously that language choice and use are embedded in interpersonal relationships which are gendered, and influenced by socio-historical, structural and situational factors, which come together in different ways in different periods. It did this by helping to uncover ideas, reflections and feelings which might otherwise have been ignored or marginalised by a less sensitive approach. In brief, the mixture of methods, and particularly the qualitative life history approach, were critical for this study, and could well be applied fruitfully to other exploratory studies which seek to capture subjective views in multiple contexts.





Invisible work

. Findings relative to the initial research question(s) The general question—or questions—which guided this study was: How do mothers’ and fathers’ values and aspirations come together in ethnically diverse families, what structural and situational characteristics influence this process, and how are language decisions and practice located in this process? This general question was broken up into a number of subsidiary questions, listed in chapter 1. Here I will very briefly repeat some of the main findings. The initial decision as to which language the mothers would use was made primarily by the mothers themselves, although that decision potentially had major implications for family relations. Of the 28 mothers, twelve started out using Japanese, five started out using English, and eleven vacillated between using Japanese and English. For the Japanese speakers, communicative satisfaction (the desire to feel satisfied in communicating to the child), and old hearth ties, or relationships with family in Japan, were important. Reasons for choosing English included avoiding ‘Japan’ and the ‘Japanese way’ of relating to children, orientation to British social networks, and avoiding ‘language teaching work.’ Non-decision makers talked about a lack of information, early childrearing chaos which gave them little time or energy to think language issues through clearly, and conflicting advice or considerations. More than half the families reported a change in language use over time, predominantly towards greater use of English. It became clear to the mothers that bilingual-child rearing was not a ‘natural’ process. Some felt that creating a social network which was necessary to sustain Japanese use was manipulative or artificial. Others felt torn using Japanese in front of English speakers, or felt concerned about isolating their partner. Etsuko Ericson, who stopped using Japanese, commented: I want our family to be able to laugh and cry in one language.

It was not a matter of insufficient access to satellite TV, videos, and so on. When asked what kind of help might have made things easier, none of the mothers mentioned these. Their considerations were based on personal needs and interpersonal relations, which were much more fundamental. They were closely related to childrearing and educational experiences, which were examined sequentially in chapters 7-9. Chapter 7 showed how the minority mother - majority father situation produced a sharp breadwinner - home-maker division of labour. The mother was in a foreign country, typically unable to get a job reflecting her qualifica-

 

Concluding discussion

tions or with a level of pay approaching that of her partner, and was faced with uncertainties and apprehension about raising children in an unfamiliar environment. In such a situation, even those mothers who would have preferred to work decided to stay at home and concentrate on initial childrearing. The decision to use Japanese sometimes intensified this division of labour, and conversely, the division of labour encouraged some mothers to use Japanese. There were differences between the older and younger mothers. More older mothers worked when their children were young (partly for financial reasons), fewer used Japanese, and in general, they appeared to be more relaxed about childrearing. By contrast, more younger mothers stayed at home, focused on their child, and used Japanese determinedly. I described the tendency as ‘pro-activist’ mothering, combining ‘child first’ childrearing with ‘the earlier the better’ or ‘it has to be now’ approach to the minority language use. There were also differences in the orientations of the fathers, with younger fathers spending more time at work, whether to support a certain lifestyle or for career advancement, and doing less around the house. The division of labour widened differences in perceptions between fathers and mothers, concerning both language and childrearing. Although there were exceptions, fathers were inclined to view bilingual-child rearing as a natural process, and many of the stresses and dilemmas experienced by their wife were largely invisible to them. Deprived of real support and understanding from the most effective source—their partner— (younger) mothers’ pro-activist tendencies and stresses were intensified. Ironically, with the approach of schooling, the Japanese-speaking mothers had to be especially concerned about their child’s English language development. Continuing with Japanese was felt to depend on evidence that it would not result in a problematic start at school, which might have long-term consequences. Reassurances by specialists that any language delay would eventually be overcome were of little comfort, because the mothers felt there was more at stake than language competence. Recent emphasis on early literacy in the UK intensified the mothers’ concerns. At the same time, mothers were prompted to begin thinking about Japanese reading and writing, encouraged by advice from the Kumon Method that minority language proficiency should precede majority language literacy. When their children started school, they were at home for a shorter period of the day. Time available for Japanese was further reduced by homework and extracurricular activities, which the mothers viewed as not completely optional, at a time when more time was required for Japanese reading and writing.





Invisible work

These (younger, Japanese-speaking) mothers experienced intense time pressures, for reasons which were not clear to their husbands, whose point of reference was often their own school days. Husbands tended to attribute their wife’s dilemmas to their Japanese background—the so-called ‘education mother’ phenomenon—rather than changes in British education and family life. However, the mothers, too, recalled more relaxed primary school days, and reasoned that they would have had fewer pressures if they had been in Japan. Some mothers who had not already done so abandoned Japanese use during this time. Others settled for trying to maintain daily conversation. A few attempted to forge ahead with reading and writing, and persisted into the later school years. In these cases, there were strong reasons for doing so, and facilitating conditions, such as an ‘easy child’, or a father willing to enforce the necessary discipline. The mothers, too, adopted a non child-centred approach to relations with their children. Forging ahead came at a cost, moreover, including the sacrifice of family time, and potential family rifts. Adolescence is well known as a stressful time for families, in part because parents themselves are often going through significant introspection and change (cf. Koski and Steinberg, 1990). As the children began to become more independent, mothers began to think about what to do with their growing free time, and how to ‘find a place’ for themselves. Those who had not found a place in the UK, and did not expect to find one through work, increasingly contemplated returning to Japan. This was evident in the families in which the language project had been carried through to completion (sitting A-level examinations in this case), ironically where the husband had been most supportive. . Emerging concepts During the course of the research, a number of important concepts emerged, not so much in relation to the research questions, but from the findings and research process itself. As the research questions were guiding questions, and as it is necessary, I have argued, to understand as far as possible how the respondents themselves thought about and experienced childrearing and language use in their family, these concepts are critical. An overwhelming impression which emerged from the research, but which other literature did not prepare me to find, was that raising children bilingually in intermarried families is emotionally demanding work. It is emotionally demanding in at least four senses, which the above comments hinted at. First, the mothers had to deal with internal conflicts. On the one hand,

 

Concluding discussion

they did not want to be pushy, and wanted their child to learn naturally. On the other, they realised that in order to make progress with the language project, they had to carefully organise their social environment, control their child’s use of time, and deny them time to relax or play. They themselves sometimes felt conflict between the desire to become more actively engaged in British society, and fostering a ‘Japan’ orientation for the project. Another conflict was the desire for good and warm communication with their child on the one hand, and the need for ‘constant reminding’ (to use Japanese), which raised tensions, on the other. Living with such conflicts in everyday life was emotionally demanding. Second, they had to balance various needs or demands, of which their child’s Japanese language development was only one. Partners had their needs or demands, including attention from their wife. Focusing on bilingual-child rearing risked introducing tensions into that relationship, and marginalising their husbands, even when they supported the project in principle. Children had other needs, including time for relaxation, and communicative needs, as mentioned. Since their long-term prospects were likely to be in the UK, there was the need to ensure that they were well adjusted, in preparation for that future. Mothers had their own needs as well, some of which could be realised through using Japanese with their children, others which could not. Mothers wanted time to relax, too, to ‘be themselves’ rather than a home language teacher, or to go out to work in some cases. If they failed to balance all these demands, the whole fabric of their family life could crumble. Balancing them was emotionally demanding, especially when mothers could see that maintaining a balance would result in reduced use of the minority language. (Conversely, however, when mothers decided that language project priorities over-rode balancing requirements, by putting husband’s needs aside, for instance, the project became easier, although this strategy carried risks and costs. Moreover, the project could in some senses compensate for missing family relationships, for example when husband and wife interaction was missing, in spite of the wife’s need for it.) Third, there was a need for continuous monitoring. To some extent this was due to the fact that they were minority mothers, raising children in an unfamiliar environment, but an environment which their child had to become well adapted to. With little help from their partner because of the division of labour formed during the early childrearing years, they had to seek information, to observe what others were doing, and compare their practices, and their children, against those of others. Using Japanese intensified the tendency.





Invisible work

Mothers felt Japanese use was conditional on ‘normal’ English language development in preparation for school. They did not want their child to be disadvantaged as a result of their decision to use Japanese. This involved careful monitoring, which was mentally demanding. It was often accompanied by anxiety and questioning whether they were doing the right thing, which was emotionally demanding. Fourth, underpinning the emphasis on monitoring was the potential to be blamed if something went wrong, be it English language development, academic progress or social adjustment. Some mothers felt obliged to engage in ‘proving work’ to demonstrate that they were not doing something harmful. This, too, was emotionally demanding. Etsuko Ericson commented about her decision to stop using Japanese: ‘It was great for me.’ When asked how she imagined things would have been if she had decided to continue, she immediately commented; ‘My whole life would have been different.’ . Invisible work If the emotionally demanding nature of bilingual-child rearing is so fundamental, why has it been largely ignored? The answer is perhaps that, like ‘emotional work’ in the family (e.g. DeVault, 1987), it is largely invisible, even to many of the informants of this study, particularly fathers. It is even more invisible to researchers who rely on quantitative methods, and to qualitative researchers if they fail to explore the informants’ views about matters which may be considered marginal. In a way, it does not matter how many hours a researcher spends talking to informants about childrearing and language development if the informant feels the researcher is not interested in her/his own difficulties, however ‘trivial.’ The data will simply not be generated. Examples of potentially ‘trivial’ issues in this study include the frustration of ‘not enough time,’ children not behaving themselves, colic or eczema problems, and so on. It is the combination of these things, together with inherent dilemmas in the project, which makes bilingual-child rearing in intermarried families emotionally demanding work, but they tend to remain invisible since they remain outside the realm of most ‘data collecting.’ I referred to the need for mothers to balance various demands. In fact it would be more accurate to say that they needed to accommodate different demands and satisfy different goals simultaneously. Without grasping the

 

Concluding discussion

importance of simultaneous accommodation, it is impossible to understand childrearing and language use in these families. Mothers had to juggle demands of providing an environment for minority language acquisition, ensuring that the majority language competence of their children did not create a problem at school, that children were exposed to appropriate extracurricular activities but that they also had enough time to relax and be children, in addition to their (mothers’) other housework, looking after younger children and family-related work, and of course any independent aspirations they might have had for themselves, for their husband or to maintain their marriage. Simultaneous accommodation necessitated making priorities, which differed from person to person, in part because of differing values or aspirations, but in part because of different socio-historical, situational and social contexts, and which also differed according to the family life stage. As demands changed, priorities naturally changed, even for the same person. Monitoring and adjustment happens in any non-intermarried majority family, but here the processes were more complex and demanding. Simultaneous accommodation and making priorities do not fit easily into cultural conflict approaches to the study of intermarriage, nor are they easily captured by the snapshot—or video camera—’contextualising’ of bilingualism research. They are crucial, however, if we are to move closer towards understanding childrearing and language use in intermarried families. . Generalisability Given the importance of ‘structural’ influences—such as that of minority wives living in their husband’s country—socio-historical influences and situational factors, care must obviously be taken when attempting to generalise the findings. First, to what extent might the findings apply to other Japanese mother British father intermarried families in the UK? Although there are likely to be distinctive variations not encountered among the 28 families, it is unlikely that a different sample would produce a significantly different picture. Differences between older and younger families have been noted. If we wish to predict issues which are likely to arise for younger families embarking on bilingual-child rearing, the accounts of younger families, including the division of labour, pressures towards pro-activist mothering, pressures from school and time allocation, intensified by Japanese reading and writing, are likely to be relevant. Then what of the reverse situation; Japanese father - British mother intermarried families in the UK? This combination appears to be less common





Invisible work

(perhaps because of wider differences in respective views of interpersonal relations and family arrangements, perhaps because career difficulties, noted for the mothers but when combined with bread winning self expectations, would discourage many Japanese men from remaining in the UK), but given that fostering language competence is so closely bound with childrearing, it is unlikely that there would be many examples of sustained attempts at bilingual-child rearing as described in this study (unless, of course, the father happens to be a linguist). There may or may not be a pronounced division of labour in such families, but attempts to foster bilingualism would be likely to involve use of external assistance—home tutors perhaps, or school classes, and possibly trips to Japan—with more limited direct involvement by the father. As for other minority mother - majority father families, such as French/ German/ Swedish mother - British father families, many of the findings are likely to apply. If they decide to use their own language, minority mothers have to cope with internal conflicts, balancing, monitoring, simultaneous accommodation and prioritising. And as (élite) bilingualism becomes more widely accepted—indeed expected—on the one hand, but pressures from early literacy and competing time demands make it more difficult to achieve on the other, the emotionally demanding nature of bilingual-child rearing is, if anything, likely to intensify. It is possible that pressures on European mothers, for instance, are less intense, for two reasons. First, greater geographical proximity is likely to make more frequent visits, both to the mother’s country and from it by friends and family, possible, reducing some of the pressures that were felt by Japanese mothers. Second, these languages are less different from English than Japanese, and without the reading and writing obstacles that Japanese poses. As a result, time pressures and pressures related to discipline and motivation maintenance are likely to be less intense. Nonetheless, it is likely that the mothers in these families would face many of the pressures and dilemmas faced by the Japanese mothers, for instance when they see a gap opening up between English language ability and the minority language ability after the children start school. The findings, therefore, are likely to be more generalisable to these groups than to Japanese father British mother families living in the UK, given the gendered dimension of many of the dynamics. Indeed, Susan Fries’ (1998) personal account as an American mother attempting to raise her children bilingually in France resonates very strongly with many of the findings in this study. She relates how fifteen years of integra-

 

Concluding discussion

tion into French life was followed by ‘dis-integration’, and of unhappiness deriving from strong feelings about her children’s bilingualism, of anxiety about her children’s French in the ‘unforgiving’ French school system and the consequent need to engage in what I have called ‘proving’ work, of the ‘long and painful process’, a ‘gnawing sense of failure’, and finally, ‘no recognition, no applause.’ Moreover, she noted that many other women in her situation had similar experiences.

. Recognition . Demands of recognition This study has shown that raising children bilingually in intermarried families is emotionally demanding work, largely because of pressures and dilemmas which researchers have tended to marginalise. Making the invisible more visible through illumination is an important task, but it must be followed up by ‘recognition’. Taylor (1994) notes the importance of recognition in contemporary politics, on behalf of minority groups, in feminism, and multiculturalism. The importance stems in part from the link between recognition and identity. As identity is partly shaped by recognition, people can suffer real damage, or real distortion, indeed oppression, in its absence, or by mis-recognition. Due recognition is not simply a courtesy we owe people, but a ‘vital human need’ (p.26): (T)he demand for recognition is now explicit. And it has been made explicit… by the spread of the idea that we are formed by recognition. We could say that, thanks to this idea, misrecognition has now graduated to the rank of a harm …’ (1994: 64, emphasis added).

In tangible ways, substantive recognition would help mothers such as those in this study raising their children bilingually in their partner’s country. First, recognition by their partner—and others—would itself make a major difference. It is not simply a matter of support. Fries notes that her partner offered various kinds of support, and even spoke English with her children to avoid a possible divide in the family, but perversely this was sometimes done in such a way as to increase her feelings of frustration and failure. ‘My husband would always explain to me, and to others, that of course our children would speak English well, that there was "no problem," that I was too demanding.’ His attitude was, ‘Oh, anyone can learn to speak English’ (1998: 139). Through such





Invisible work

comments, he was belittling her project. In particular, she was frustrated at his failure to recognise the emotional nature of her project, and his treatment of English language acquisition as a straightforward and natural process. Fries interprets this in terms of power relations, but ‘politics of recognition’ might be a more appropriate framework (cf. Taylor, 1994: 70). Support without recognition can thus be dis-empowering. On the other hand, recognition in itself can be empowering, as it affirms the legitimacy of the mothers’ dilemmas and the nature of their difficulties, and recognises their capabilities in dealing with them, rather than casting them as paranoid, insecure and incapable. It affirms their identity as able mothers rather than negating it. Feeling they are understood by someone significant in itself is empowering, and is crucial in the case of partners. In addition, recognising that their wives are engaged in a (particularly emotionally) demanding project can help partners to offer constant reaffirmation (which Schecter et al., 1996, identify as vital), and offer more effective kinds of support. Specifically, it can lead to a shared commitment to the development of the project as it evolves and new challenges which emerge, as well as an explicit commitment to shared responsibility for the outcomes along the way. Sharing of commitment and responsibility, based on recognition, could have made a major difference for many of the mothers, and families, in this study. For instance, when mothers were faced with a dilemma over whether to continue with Japanese or concentrate on English as their child approached school, shared commitment and responsibility by the partner would have alleviated the situation. It is not necessary for everyone to offer this kind of recognition, but from partners it is vital. In a less direct way, the need for recognition applies to researchers and professionals as well. Advice from researchers and professionals, explicit or implicit, without recognition can lead to dis-empowerment, intensified pressure, guilt and personal trauma, while recognition can encourage more effective mechanisms of support, and an empowering environment. It is simplistic to believe that such recognition will happen easily. James and Prout (1997: 22) note that ‘deep rooted sources of resistance to the reconceptualising of childhood within sociology… is rooted in the same factors which excluded attention to women.’ They cite Ambert (1986: 16): ‘the gate keepers of the discipline continue to place a high value on certain types of knowledge, data, theories and research methods.’ The same applies to linguistics and many other disciplines, of course. Such knowledge, data, theories and research methods fuse with institutionalised practices to produce self-validating ‘truth’ which is tremendously resistant to change.

 

Concluding discussion

From the researcher’s point of view, recognition begins with the type of questions asked and the methods selected to answer those questions. Respecting the subjects of research is one step, but recognition of the subjects’ environment, and interaction with the environment, is vital, as Clulow (1993) argues in his study of ‘good enough’ marriage. It is only when these are addressed that data and knowledge leading to the ‘vital human need’ of recognition can be generated. One way of ‘breaking into’ the self-reinforcing loop of entrenched disciplinary approaches and institutionalised practices described by James and Prout is to look beyond conventional disciplinary boundaries for new tools and concepts. In a study of bilingual-child rearing in intermarried families, this is not just desirable but essential, as the experiences of the families are holistic, and cannot be neatly compartmentalised according to conventional disciplines (cf. Kaægitçibas, i, 1996). . Disciplinary contribution Having drawn on family studies, ethnicity studies and studies of bilingualism, it is fitting to end by suggesting how the study might contribute to these respectively. Family studies research has been relatively late in moving from ‘mainstream’ families to incorporate greater diversity. There has been relatively little interest in the UK in intermarriage, and that which exists tends to focus on couples, or more recently on children, but little on both, or the processes of childrearing which would produce a more dynamic and nuanced picture. This study, therefore, contributes to an area of relative neglect, and through its focus on language, it has helped to bring to light often invisible features. Minority mothers do not simply act according to a cultural stamp. They have their own values and aspirations, but (in the case of the Japanese mothers in this study) they must cope with an unfamiliar environment, which becomes particularly stressful during childrearing. Faced with uncertainties as to whether their own perceptions apply, how things are done in their adopted country and whether their children should conform to them, yet an absence of effective support or advice in some cases, the mothers reacted in various ways. Language use was intertwined with this; in some cases the mothers became pro-activist and determined to foster their language, and in others they rejected both. Some of these features may apply to non-intermarried majority families, but in a less acute form. The anxieties that the mothers face approaching





Invisible work

schooling, dilemmas over competing demands for time, and ‘finding a place’ as children grow older, for instance, are not specific to the families studied here. Nor are pressures towards the ‘child first’ dimension of pro-activist mothering, which are reported in the Sunday papers and popular media in the UK. Regarding ethnicity studies, this study has reinforced the importance of moving beyond stereotypes and towards ‘situational ethnicity,’ which is not surprising given the way in which the stereotypes have been constructed (see chapter 2). To give one example, with the growing independence of their children, ‘finding a place’ became a major issue for the mothers. This meant somewhere they felt they belonged, not in abstract cultural terms, but in terms of a place they felt comfortable, competent and empowered in, and it often meant finding a job. (Indeed a number of the mothers reported that if they had been in Japan, they might well have tried to combine paid work with early childrearing.) Second, studies of childrearing in ethnically (culturally) diverse families acknowledge the importance of parents and parental values, but this study shows that it is crucial to understand the gendered nature of childrearing and language use, to understand who is involved in these, and how. With some exceptions, such as those noted in chapter 2, ethnicity studies, curiously, have not come to terms sufficiently with these issues. The mothers in this study were Japanese women rather than Japanese women. Third, it is well known that the family provides an important context for the generation and transmission of ethnic identity, and that language is an important source of ethnic identity. This study, however, suggests that ‘language as a source of ethnic identity’ is a simplistic conception. More accurately, ethnic identity is likely to be shaped during the process of language use and acquisition. The focus should be less on the extent of language maintenance, and more on language process. Finally, regarding bilingualism studies, this study shows unambiguously that language use in intermarried families is deeply intertwined with the experience of childrearing. It is impossible to separate it from interpersonal, family and societal contexts. Research which fails to recognise these contexts, and claims to offer relevant advice, can end up compounding pressures on parents rather than solving them. In particular, it must be recognised that mothers have other needs and aspirations, for themselves (including personal and professional development, as well as maintaining or developing relations with their partner), for their children (including having time to relax and play with friends), and for their relationships with their children (including quality communication and, especially, stress-free interaction). Linguists interested in bilingualism

 

Concluding discussion

must engage in dialogue with researchers of ethnicity and family studies in order to offer sensitive advice to those attempting to raise their children bilingually, or those worrying about why they are not raising their children bilingually. Some researchers of bilingualism do argue for the importance of context, and not simply the context that can be observed during data collection (De Houwer, 1998a), as well as the importance of parental beliefs—at least regarding language practices (De Houwer, 1999; Schecter et. al, 1996)—and to a very limited extent, gender in a social rather than a grammatical sense (Lanza, 1997). Advancing the argument, however, requires constructing a research agenda and research tools based on it. Some of these tools can be found in ethnicity and family studies. Another interesting development, in the field of sociolinguistics, is based around the notion of a Community of Practice, in which relationships between language use and gender (and also ethnicity, status, etc.) are studied in specific contexts. From these, knowledge is built up and theoretical generalisations are constructed (cf. Language in Society 1999, 28/2). Again, however, such studies could benefit from, for example, the life-course perspective and/or the life history method as developed in family sociology. Some may feel that my study presents an overly pessimistic view of bilingual-child rearing in intermarried families. If so, it is because I have attempted to understand the difficulties in bilingual-child rearing, without which effective support measures cannot be devised. It is true, as Baetens Beardsmore (1986) has pointed out, there is a lingering tendency in studies of bilingualism to focus on ‘problems’, whereas the presence of two languages can lead to immense personal satisfaction and richness. We need to recognise the ‘joyfulness of speech’ (Rampton, 1995; Singh et al., 1988), which relates to the creation of ‘new ethnicities’. To be sure mothers did express joy at some of the things their children said and did, and fathers noted how they enjoyed taking their children to the pool or school, or playing football in the back garden. Little pleasures such as these appeared to be important. But to really explore the joyfulness of bilingual-child rearing in these families would have required substantially more interview time than was available, as well as new tools of analysis. It remains a task for future research.



Bibliography

Allen, S. (1994), ‘Race, Ethnicity and Nationality: Some questions of identity’, in H. Afshar and M. Maynard (eds.), The Dynamics of ‘Race’ and Gender: Some feminist interventions, London: Taylor and Frances, 85–105. Allison, A. (1996), ‘Producing Mothers’, in A. Imamura (ed.), 135–55. Andersen, M. (1993), ‘Studying Across Difference: Race, class, and gender in qualitative research’, in J. Stansfield and R. Dennis (eds.), Race and Ethnicity in Research Methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 39–52. Anderson, M. (ed.) (1964, 1980), Sociology of the Family , Harmondsworth: Penguin, 302–24. Andrews, M. (1991), Lifetime of Commitment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archers, S. L. (1992), ‘A Feminist’s Approach to Identity Research’, in G. Adams, P. Gullotta and R. Montemayor (eds.), Adolescent Identity Formation, London: Sage, 25–49. Armstrong, P.F. (1987), Qualitative Strategies in Social and Educational Research: The life history method in theory and practice, Hull: University of Hull. Arnberg, L. (1987), Raising Children Bilingually: The pre-school years, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Askham, J. (1984), Identity and Stability in Marriage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Azuma, H., Kashiwagi, K. and Hess, R. D. (1981), Mothers’ Attitudes and Behaviour and Intellectual Development of Children: A comparative study of US and Japan (Hahaoya no taido, kodo to kodomo no chiteki hattatsu — Nichibei hikaku kenkyu), Tokyo: Tokyo University Press. Azuma, H. (1996), ‘Cross-National Research on Child Development: The Hess-Azuma collaboration in retrospect’, in D. Swalb and B. Shwalb (eds.), 220–40. Backett, K. (1982), Mothers and Fathers: A study of the development and negotiation of parental behaviour, London: Macmillan. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1986), Bilingualism: Basic principles, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ballard, C. (1979) ‘Conflict, Continuity and Change: Second-generation South Asians’, in V. Khan (ed.), 109–29. Baker, C. (1993), Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (1995), A Parents’ and Teachers’ Guide to Bilingualism, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.



Invisible work

Baker, C. (1996), Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (2nd edition), Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Barbara, A. (1989), Marriage across Frontiers, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bennett, N. and Kell, J. (1989), A Good Start?: Four year olds in infant schools, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Berger, P. L. and Kellner, H. (1964, 1980), ‘Marriage and the Construction of Reality’, in M. Anderson (ed.), 1–23. Berheide, C. (1984), ‘Women’s Work in the Home: Seems like old times’, in B. Hess and M. Sussman (eds.), Woman and the Family: Two decades of change, New York: The Haworth Press, 37–55. Bernard, J. (1972), The Future of Marriage, London: Souvenir Press. Bernardes, J. (1988), ‘Whose “Family”?: A note on the changing sociological construct of the family’, Sociological Review, 33: 267–72. Bernstein, B. (1995),The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse: Class, codes and control IV, London: Routledge. Bhachu, P. (1993), ‘Identities Constructed and Reconstructed: Representation of Asian women in Britain’, in G. Buijs (ed.), Migrant Women: Crossing boundaries and changing identities, Oxford: Berg, 99–117. Blau, P., Blum, T., and Schwartz, J. (1982), ‘Heterogeneity and Intermarriage’, American Sociological Review, 47: 45–62. Blumer, H. (1969), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and method, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bogdan, R. (1974), Being Different: The autobiography of Jane Fry, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bornstein, M., Tal, J. and Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1991), ‘Parenting in Cross-Cultural Perspectives: The United States, France, and Japan’, in M. Bornstein (ed.), Cultural Approaches to Parenting, Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 69–90. Boulton, M. (1983), On Being a Mother: A study of women with pre-school children, London: Tavistock. Bowlby, J. (1969), Attachment (Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1), New York: Basic Books. Bozett, F. and Hanson, S. (1991), ‘Introduction’, in F. Bozett and S. Hanson (eds.), xiii-xv. Bozett, F. and Hanson, S. (eds.) (1991), Fatherhood and Families in Cultural Context, New York: Springer Publishing Company. Bradley, R. H. (1985), ‘Fathers and the School-Age Child’, in S. Hanson and F. Bozet (eds.), 141–69. Brannen, J. (1988), ‘Research Note: The study of sensitive subjects’, The Sociological Review, 36: 552–63. Brannen, J. (1992), ‘Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches: An overview’, in J. Brannen (ed.), 3–37. Brannen, J. (1993), ‘The Effects of Research on Participants’, The Sociological Review, 41: 328–46. Brannen, J. (ed.) (1992), Mixing Methods: Qualitative and quantitative research, Aldershot, Hants: Avebury. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979), The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by nature and design, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bibliography

Brown, L. M. and Gilligan, C. (1992), Meeting at the Crossroads: Women’s psychology and girls’ development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bryman, A. (1992), ‘Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Future reflections on their integration’, in J. Brannen (ed.), 57–78. Bryman, A. and Burgess, R. G. (eds.) (1994), Analyzing Qualitative Data, London: Routledge. Burgess, R. G. (1982), ‘Personal Documents, Oral Sources and Life Histories’, in R. Burgess (ed.), 131–135. Burgess, R. G. (ed.) (1982), Field Research: A source book and field manual, London: George Allen and Unwin. Burgoyne, J. and Clark, D. (1984), Making a Go of It: A study of stepfamilies in Sheffield, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Burman, E. (1991), ‘Power, Gender and Developmental Psychology’, Feminism and Psychology, 1: 141–53. Burman, E. (1994), Deconstructing Developmental Psychology, London: Routledge. Burton, P. (1994), ‘Women and Second-Language Use: An introduction’, in P. Burton, K.K. Dyson and S.A. Ardener (eds.), 1–29. Burton, P., Dyson, K. K. and Ardener, S. A. (eds.) (1994), Bilingual Women: Anthropological approaches to second language use, Oxford: Berg. Cauce, A., Hiraga, Y., Mason, C., Aguilar, T., Ordonez, N. and Gonzalez, N. (1992), ‘Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Social adjustment of biracial youth’, in M. Root (ed.), 207–22. Caudill, W. and Weinstein, H. (1969), ‘Maternal Care and Infant Behaviour in Japan and America’, Psychiatry, 32: 12–43. Channer, Y. (1995), I am a Promise: The school achievement of British African Caribbeans, Stoke-on Trent: Trentham Books. Chester, R. (1985), ‘Marriage in Britain: An overview of research’, in W. Dryden (ed.), Marital Therapy in Britain, London: Harper & Row, 3–33. Clancy, P. A. (1986), ‘The Acquisition of Communicative Style in Japanese’, in B. B. Schieffelin (ed.), Language Socialization Across Cultures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 213–50. Clark, D. (1991), ‘Introduction’, in D. Clark (ed.), 3–6. Clark, D. (ed.) (1991), Marriage, Domestic Life and Social Change: Writings for Jacqueline Burgoyne, London: Routledge. Cleave, S. and Brown, S. (1991), Early to School: Four year olds in infant classes, Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Clulow, C. (1987), Being More Than Two: Impacts of children on married couples, Gloucester: Gloucestershire Association for Family Life. Clulow, C. (1993), ‘Good-Enough Marriage’, in C. Clulow (ed.), Rethinking Marriage: Public and private perspectives, London: Karnac Books, 123–34. Clyne, M. (1987), ‘Constraints on Code-switching: How universal are they?’, Linguistics, 25: 739–64. Cohen, G. (1977), ‘Absentee Husbands in Spiralist Families’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39: 595–604. Constantinidou, E. (1994), ‘The “Death” of East Sutherland Gaelic: Death by women?’, in P. Burton, K. Dyson and S. Ardener (eds.), 111–27.





Invisible work

Cottrell, A. (1973), ‘Cross-National Marriage as as Extension of an International Life Style: A study of Indian-Western couples’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35: 739–41 Cottrell, A. (1990), ‘Cross-National Marriages: A review of the literature’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 21: 151–69. Cowan, C., Cowan, P., Heming, G., Garrett, E., Coysh, W., Curtis-Boles, H. and Boles, A. (1985), ‘Transitions to Parenthood: His, hers, and theirs’, Journal of Family Issues, 6: 451–81. Creswell, J. W. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among five traditions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cretser, G. (1990), ‘Intermarriage between “White” Britons and Immigrants from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 21: 227–38. Daly, K. (1997), ‘The Fit Between Qualitative Research and Characteristics of Families’, in J. Gilgun (ed.), Qualitative Methods and Family Research, London: Sage, 3–11. David, M. (1993), Parents, Gender and Education Reform, Cambridge: Polity Press. David, M., Edwards, R., Hughes, M. and Ribbens, J. (1993), Mothers and Education: Inside out? Exploring family-education policy and experience, London: The Macmillan Press. David, M., West, A. and Ribbens, J. (1994), Mother’s Intuition?: Choosing secondary schools, London: Falmer Press. De Houwer, A. (1990), The Acquisition of Two Languages from Birth: A case study, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. De Houwer, A. (1995), ‘Bilingual Language Acquisition’, in P. Fletcher and B. Macwhinney (eds.), The Handbook of child Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 219–50. De Houwer, A. (1998a), ‘By Way of Introduction: Methods in studies of bilingual first language acquisition’, The International Journal of Bilingualism, 2: 249–63. De Houwer, A. (1998b), ‘Coda: Some pointers for the future’, The International Journal of Bilingualism, 2: 373–75. De Houwer, A. (1999), ‘Environmental Factors in Early Bilingual Development: The role of parental beliefs and attitudes’, in G. Extra and L. Verhoeven (eds.), Bilingualism and Migration, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 75–95. Delphy, C. and Leonard, D. (1992), Familiar Exploitation: A new analysis of marriage in contemporary Western societies, Cambridge: Polity Press. Denscombe, M (1996), Sociology Update, Leicester: Olympus Books. Denzin, N. (1970), ‘Introduction to Part X: The life history method’, in N. Denzin (ed.), Sociological Methods: A source book , London: Butterworths, 415–18. Denzin , N. (1978), The Research Act in Sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods, New York: McGraw-Hill. Desforges, C. W. (ed.) (1989), Early Childhood Education, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. DeVault, M. (1987), ‘Doing Housework: Feeding and family life’, in N. Gerstel and H. Gross (eds.), 178–91. Dilworth-Anderson, P., Burton, L. M. and Johnson, L. B. (1993a), ‘Reframing Theories for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Families’, in P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm and S. Steinmetz (eds.), Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A contextual approach, New York: Plenum Press, 627–46.

Bibliography

Dilworth-Anderson, P. D., Burton, L. M. and Turner, W. L. (1993b), ‘The Importance of Values in the Study of Culturally Diverse Families’, Family Relations, 42: 238–42. Doi, T. (1974), ‘Amae: A key concept for understanding Japanese personality’, in T. S. Lebra and W. Lebra (eds.), Japanese Culture and Behaviour, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 121–29. Doman, G. (1979), Teach Your Baby Maths, London: Cape. Döpke, S. (1986), ‘Discourse Structure in Bilingual Families’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7: 493–507. Döpke, S. (1988), ‘The Role of Parental Teaching Techniques in Bilingual German-English Families’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 72: 101–12. Döpke, S. (1992), One Parent, One Language: An interactional approach, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dosanjh, J. S. and Ghuman, P. A. S. (1997), Child-rearing Practices in Ethnic Minorities, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dowling, M. (1995), Starting School at Four: A joint endeavour, London: Paul Chapman. Drummond, M.J. (1996), ‘An Undesirable Document’, Forum, 38: 56–58. Edgell, S. (1972), ‘Marriage and the Concept of Companionship’, British Journal of Sociology, 23:452–61. Edgell, S. (1980), Middle Class Couples: A study of segregation, domination and inequality in marriage, London: George Allen and Unwin. Edwards, J. (1985), Language, Society and Identity, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Eisenstadt, N. (1986), ‘Parental Involvement: Some feminist issues’, in N. Brown and P. France (eds.), Untying the Apron Strings: Anti-sexist provision for the under-fives, Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 89–103. Elder, G. (1978), ‘Approaches to Social Change and the Family’, in J. Demos and S. Boocock (eds.), Turning Points: Historical and sociological essays on the family, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Feiring, C. and Lewis, M. (1987), ‘The Ecology of Some Middle Class Families at Dinner’, Ineternational Journal of Behavioral Development, 10: 377–90. Ferree, M. (1987), ‘Family and Job for Working Class Women: Gender and class systems seen from below’, in N. Gerstel and H.E. Gross (eds.), 289–301. Ferree, M. (1990), ‘Beyond Separate Spheres: Feminism and family research’, Journal of marriage and the Family, 52:866–84. Finch, J. (1984), “’It’s great to have someone to talk to”: The ethics and politics of interviewing women’, in C. Bell and H. Roberts (eds.), Social Researching: Politics, problems, practice, London: Routledge and Kagan Paul, 70–87. Finch, J. (1989), Family Obligation and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press. Finch, J. and Morgan, D. (1991), ‘Marriage in the 1980s: A new sense of realism?’, in D. Clark (ed.), 55–80. Finch, J. and Summerfield, P. (1991), ‘Social Reconstruction and the Emregence of Companionate Marriage’, in D. Clark (ed.), 7–32. Finch, J. and Mason, J. (1993), Negotiating Family Responsibilities, London: Routledge. Fishman, J. (1977), ‘The Social Science Perspective’, in Center for Applied Linguistics (ed.), Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives, Arlington, Virginia: C.A.L..





Invisible work

Fishman, J. (1991), Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and empirical assistance to threatened languages, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fontana, A. and Frey, J. (1994), ‘Interviewing: The art of science’, in N. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage, 361–76. Freeland, J. (1998), ‘An Interesting Absence: The gendered study of language and linguistic diversity in Latin America’, International Journal of Educational Development, 18: 161–79. Fries, S. (1998), ‘Different phases: A personal case study in language adjustment and children’s bilingualism’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 133: 129–141. Fujimura-Fansilow, K. and Kameda, A. (1995), Japanese Women: New feminist perspectives on the past, present and future, New York: The Feminist Press. Furedi, F. (2001), Paranoid Parenting, London: Penguin. Gal, S. (1991), ‘Between Speech and Silence: The problematics of research on langauge and gender’, in Micaela di Leonardo (ed.), Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist anthropology in the postmodern era, CA: University of California Press. Gelb, J. and Pally, M.L. (1994), ‘Introduction’, in J. Gelb and M.L. Palley (eds.), 1–20. Gelb, J. and Palley, M. L. (eds.) (1994), Women of Japan and Korea: Continuity and change, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Genesee, F. (1989), ‘Early Bilingual Development: One langauge or two?, Journal of Child Language, 16: 161–79. Gerstel, N. and Gross, H. E. (eds.) (1987), Families and Work, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Ghaye, A. and Pascal, C. (1988), ‘Four Year Old Children in Reception Classrooms: Participant perceptions and practice’, Educational Studies, 14: 187–208. Gibbs, J. and Hines, A. (1992), ‘Negotiating Ethnic Identity: Issues for Black-White biracial adolescents’, in M. Root (ed.), 223–38. Giddens, A. (1979), Studies in Social and Political Theory, London: Hutchinson. Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y. and Taylor, D. M. (1977), ‘Towards a Theory of Language in Ethnic Group Relations’, in H. Giles (ed.), Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, London: Academic Press. Giles, H. (1978), ‘Linguistic Differentiation in Ethnic Groups’, in H. Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (European Monographs in Social Psychology, No. 14), London: Academic Press, 361–93. Gjerde, Per F. (1996), ‘Longitudinal Research in a Cultural Context: Reflections, prospects, challenges’, in D. Shwalb and B. Shwalb(eds.), 279–294. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Chicago: Aldine. Glenn, N. E. (1985), ‘Racial Ethnic Women’s Labor: The intersection of race, gender and class oppression’, Review of Radical Political Economy, 17: 86–109. Glenn, N. E. (1987), ‘Gender and the Family’, in B. Hess and M. Ferree (eds.), Analyzing Gender: A handbook of social science research, California: Sage, 348–80. Glenn, N. E. (1994), ‘Social Construction of Mothering: A thematic overview’, in N. Glenn, G. Chang and L. Forcey (eds.), Mothering: Ideology, experience and agency, New York: Routledge, 1–28.

Bibliography

Glenn, N. E. and Yap, S. G. H. (1994), ‘Chinese American Families’, in R. L. Taylor (ed.), 115–45. Golovensky, D. (1952), ‘The Marginal Man Concept: An analysis and critique’, Social Forces, 30: 333–39. Goodman, R. (1990), Japan’s ‘International Youth’: The emergence of a new class of schoolchildren, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Goodman, R. (1994), Research on Returnee Children: Developments and problems in social science research, Tokyo: Kaneko Shobo. Goody, E. and Groothues, C. M. (1979), ‘Stress in Marriage: West African couples in London’, in V. Khan (ed.), 59–86. Goodz N. (1989), ‘Parental Language Mixing in Bilingual Families’, Infant Mental Health Journal, 10: 25–44. Goodz, N. (1994), ‘Interactions between Parents and Children in Bilingual Families’, in F. Genesee (ed.), Educating Second Language Children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61–81. Gordon, T. (1990), Feminist Mother, London: Macmillan. Hall, C. (1992), ‘Please Choose One: Ethnic identity choices for biracial individuals’, in M. Root (ed.), 250–64. Hanson, S. and Bozet, F. (eds.) (1985), Dimentions of Fatherhood, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Harding, E. and Riley, P. (1986), The Bilingual Family: A handbook for parents, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hareven, T. (1978), ‘Family Time and Historical Time’, in A. S. Rossi, J. Kegan and T. Hareven (eds), The Family, New York: Norton. Harkness, S. and Super, C. M. (1996), ‘Introduction’, in S. Harkness and C. M. Super (eds.), 1–23. Harkness, S. and Super, C. M. (eds.) (1996), Parents’ Cultural Belief Systems: Their origins, expressions, and consequences, New York: The Guilford Press. Hatch, J. A. and Wisniewski, R. (eds.) (1995), Life History and Narrative, London: The Falmer Press. Hess, R. D., Holloway, S., McDevitt, T., Azuma, H., Kashiwagi, K., Nagano, S., Miyake, K., Dickson, W. P., Price, G. and Hatano, G. (1986), ‘Family Influences on School Readiness and Achievement in Japan and the United States: An overview of a longitudial study’, in H. W. Stevenson, H. Azuma, and H. Hakuta (eds.), Child Development and Education in Japan, New York: W.H. Freeman, 147–66. Hoffman, L. W. (1988), ‘Cross-Cultural Differences in Childrearing Goals’, in R. A. LeVine, P.M. Miller, and M.M. West, (eds.), 99–122. Hsui, V. Y. (1996), ‘Bilingual But Not Biliterate: Case of a multilingual Asian society’, Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39: 410–14. Hwang, S. S., Saenz, R. and Aguirre, B. E. (1997), ‘Structural and Assimilationist Explanations of Asian American Intermarriage’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59: 758–72. Imamura, A. E. (1988), ‘The Loss That Has No Name: Social womanhood of foreign wives, Gender and Society, 2: 291–307. Imamura, A. E. (1990), ‘Stranger in a Strange Land: Coping with maginality in international marriage’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 21: 171–91.





Invisible work

Imamura, A. E. (ed.) (1996), Re-Imaging Japanese Women, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Independent on Sunday (various dates). Ingleby, D. (1986), ‘Development in Social Context’, in M. Richards and P. Light (eds.), Children of Social Worlds, Cambridge: Polity Press, 297–317. Iwao, S. (1993), The Japanese Women: Traditional image and changing reality, New York: Free Press. Japan Institute of Labour (1986), Problems of Working Women, Tokyo: Japan Institute of Labour. Japan Institute of Labour (1997), Japanese Working Life Profile 1996–97, Tokyo: Japan Institute of Labour. Johnson, R. C. (1992), ‘Offspring of Cross-Race and Cross-Ethnic Marriages in Hawaii’, in M. Root (ed.), 239–49. Johnson, W. and Warren, M. (1994), Inside the Mixed Marriage: Accounts of changing attitudes, patterns, and perceptions of cross-cultural and interacial marriages, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. Kagitçibasi, Ç (1996), Family and Human Development Across Cultures: A view from the other side, Mahwah, N. J., L. Erlbaum Associates. Kamo, Y. (1988), ‘Determinants of Household Division of Labour: Resource, power, and ideology’, Journal of Family Issues, 9: 177–200. Kashiwagi, K. and Wakamatsu, M. (1994), ‘”Becoming a Parent” and Personality Development: A lifespan developmental view’, The Japanese Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5: 72–83. Kashiwagi, K. (1995), ‘A Study of Parent-child Relationships (Oyako kankei no kenkyu)’, in K. Kashiwagi and K, Takahashi (eds.), 18–52. Kashiwagi, K. and Takahashi, K. (eds.) (1995), Developmental Psychology and Feminism (Hattatsu Shinrigaku to Feminizumu), Kyoto: Mineruva Shobo. Kasuya, H. (1998), ‘Determinants of Language Choice in Bilingual Children: The role of input’, The International Journal of Bilingualism, 2: 327–46. Ke, C. R. (1998), ‘Effects of Language Background on the Learning of Chinese Characters Among Foreign Language Students’, Foreign Language Annals, 31: 91–100. Khan, V. (1979), ‘Introduction’, in V. Khan (ed.), 1–11. Khan, V. (ed.) (1979), Minority Families in Britain: Support and stress, London: The MacMillan Press. Kikumura, A. and Kitano, H. (1973), ‘Interracial Marriage: A Picture of the Japanese Americans’, The Journal of Social Issues, 29: 67–82. Komter, K. (1989), ‘Hidden Power in Marriage’, Gender and Society, 3: 187–216. Koski, K. J. and Steinberg, L. (1990), ‘Parenting Satisfaction of Mothers During Midlife’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19: 465–74. Kumon, T. (1986a), Introduction to Kumon Education Methods (Kumon-shiki Kyoiku-ho Nyumon), Tokyo: Kumon Publications. Kumon, T. (1986b), Kumon Method Early Child Education Revolution (Kumon-shiki Yoji Kyoiku Kakumei), Tokyo: Kodansha. Lamb, M.E. (1991), ‘Foreword’, in F. Bozett and S. Hanson (eds.), ix-xi.

Bibliography

Lambert, W. E. and Tucher, G. E. (1972), Bilingual Education of Children: The St Lambert Experiment, Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Lambert, W. and Taylor, D. (1996), ‘Language in the Lives of Ethnic Minorities: Cuban American families in Miami’, Applied Linguistics, 17: 477–500. Lanhan, B.B. and Garrick, J. (1996), ‘Adult to Child in Japan: Interaction and relations’, in D. Shwalb and B. Shwalb(eds.), 97–124. Lanza, E. (1992), ‘Can Bilingual Two-year-olds Code-switch?, Journal of Child Language, 19: 633–58. Lanza, E. (1997), Language Mixing in Infant Bilingualism, Oxford: Clarendon Press. LaRossa, R. and LaRossa, M. (1981), Transition to Parenthood: How infants change families, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Laslett, A. (1980), ‘Beyond Methodology: The place of theory in quantitative historical research’, American Sociological Review, 45: 214–28. Lavin, T. (1987), ‘Divergence and Convergence in the Causal Attributions of Married Couples’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49: 71–80. Lee, S. and Yamanaka, K. (1990), ‘Patterns of Asian American Intermarriage and Marital Assimilation’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 21: 287–305. Leopold, W. F. (1939–1949), Speech Development of a Bilingual Child, vols. 1–4, Evanston, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Levine, G. and Montero, D. (1973), ‘Socioeconomic Mobility Among Three Generations of Japanese Americans’, The Journal of Social Issues, 29: 33–48. LeVine, R. A. (1974), ‘Parental Goals: A cross-cultural view’, Teachers College Record, 76: 226–39. LeVine, R. A. (1980), ‘A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Parenting’, in M. D. Fantini, and R. Cardenas (eds), Parenting in a Multicultural Society, New York: Longman. LeVine, R. A. (1988), ‘Human Parental Care: Universal goals, cultural strategies, individual behavior’, in R.A. LeVine, P.M. Miller and M.M. West (eds), 3–35. LeVine, R. A., and White, M. (1987), ‘Parenthood in Social Transformation’, in J. Lancaster, J. Altman, A. Rossi and L. Sherrod (eds), Parenting Across the Life Span: Biosocial dimention, Hawthorne, New York: Aldine, 271–93. LeVine, R. A., Miller, P. M. and West, M. M. (eds) (1988), Parental Behavior in Diverse Societies (New Directions for Child Development No. 40), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lieberson, S. (1969), ‘How Can We Describe and Measure the Incidence and Distribution of Bilingualism?’, in L. Kelly (ed.), Description and Measurement of Bilingualism, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 286–95. MacDonald, S. (1987), Social and Linguistic Identity in Staffin, Isle of Skye, unpublished D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University. Mackey, R. A. and O’Brien, B. A. (1995), Lasting Marriages: Men and women growing together, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Mackey, W. F. (1968), ‘The Description of Bilingualism’, in J. A. Fishman (ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language, The Hague: Mouton. Malin, M., Campbell, K. and Agius, L. (1996), ‘Raising Children in the Nunga Aboriginal Way’, Family Matters, 43: 43–47. Mandelbaum, D.G. (1982), ‘The Study of Life History’, in R. Burgess (ed.), 146–51.





Invisible work

Mansfield, P. & Collard, J. (1988), The Beginning of the Rest of Your Life?: A Portrait of newlywed marriage, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. Marjoribanks, K. (1980), Ethnic Families and Children’s Achievements, Sydney: George Allen and Unwin. Marshall, H. (1991), ‘The Social Construction of Motherhood: An analysis of childcare and parenting manuals’, in A. Pheonix., A. Woollett and E. Lloyd, 66–85. Mason, J. (1994), ‘Linking Qualitative and Quantitative Data Analysis’, in A. Bryman and G. Burgess (eds.), 89–110. Mason, J. (1996), Qualitative Researching, London: Sage. Mass, A. (1992), ‘Interracial Japanese Americans: The best of both worlds or the end of the Japanese American community?’, in M. Root (ed.), 265–79. Maynard, M. and Purvis, J. (1994), ‘Doing Feminist Research’, in M. Maynard and J. Purvis (eds.) 1–9. Maynard, M. and Purvis, J. (eds.) (1994), Researching Women’s Lives from a Feminist Perspective, London: Taylor and Francis. McAdoo, H.P. (ed.) (1993), Family Diversity: Strength in diversity, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McDonald, M. (1994), ‘Women and Linguistic Innovation in Brittany’, in P. Burton, K. Dyson and S. Ardener (eds.), 85–110. McKee, L. (1982), ‘Fathers’ Participation in Infant Care: A critique’, in L. McKee and M. O’Brien (eds.), 120–38. McKee, L. and O’Brien, M. (1982), ‘The Father Figure: Some current orientations and historical perspectives’, in L. McKee and M. O’Brien (eds.), 1–25. McKee, L. and O’Brien, M. (eds.) (1982), The Father Figure: Some current orientations and historical perspectives, London: Tavistock. Mills, C.W. (1959), The Sociological Imagination, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mirande, A. (1991), ‘Ethnicity and Fatherhood’, in F. Bozett and S. Hanson (eds.), 53–82. Morgan, D. (1975), Social Theory and the Family, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Morgan, D. (1985), The Family, Politics and Social Theory, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Morgan, D. (1990), ‘Issues of Critical Sociological Theory: Men in families’, in J. Sprey (ed.), Fashoning Family Theory: New approaches, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 67–106. Morgan, D. (1991), ‘Ideologies of Marriage and Family Life’, in D. Clark (ed.), 114–38. Morris, L. (1985), ‘Responses to Redundancy: Labor-market experience, domestic organisation and male social networks’, International Journal of Social Economics, 12: 5–17. Morris, L. (1990), The Working of the Household: A US-UK Comparison, Cambridge: Polity Press. Munn, P. (1991) ‘Mothering more than one child’, in A. Pheonix., A. Woollett and E. Lloyd (eds.), 162–177. Nakagawa, M., Teti, D. M. and Lamb, M. E. (1992) ‘An Ecological Study of Child-Mother Attachments Among Japanese Sojourners in the United States’, Developmental Psychology, 28: 584–592. Nakamura, H. (1964), Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples, Honolulu: Hawaii University Press. Namie, Y. (1991), ‘Japanese Speech Community’, in S. Alladina and V. Edwards (eds.), Multilingualism in the British Isles, Harlow: Longman.

Bibliography

New, C. and M. David. (1985), For the Children’s Sake: Making childcare more than women’s business, Harmondsworth: Penguin. New, R. S. (1988), ‘Parental Goals and Italian Infant Care’, in R. A. LeVine, P. M. Miller and M.M. West (eds.), 51–63. Nicholadis, E. and Genesee, F. (1998), ‘Parental Discourse and Codemixing in Bilingual Children, The International Journal of Bilingualism, 2: 85–99. Nitta, F. (1988), ‘Kokusai Kekkon: Trends in intercultural marriage in Japan, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12: 205–32. Nitta, F. (1992), The Japanese Father, American Mother, and Their Children: Bicultural socialization experiences in Japan (Kokusai Kekkon to Kodomotachi: Ibunka to kyozon suru kazoku, Tokyo: Akashi Shoten. Oakley, A. (1974), The Sociology of Housework, Oxford: Martin Robertson. Oakley, A. (1981a), ‘Interviewing Women: A contradiction in terms’, in H. Roberts (ed.), Doing Feminist Research, London: RKP, 30–61. Oakley, A. (1981b), Housewife, Middlesex: Penguin Books. Ochs, E. (1992), ‘Indexing Gender’, in A. Duranti, and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 335–58. Ogbu, J. U. (1981), ‘Origin of Human Competence: A cultural-ecological perspective’, Child Development, 52: 413–29. Okamura, J. (1981), ‘Situational Ethnicity’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4:452–65. Okita, T. (1996), Home Language Choices and Cultural Identities: The experiences of Japanese mothers in the UK, unpublished M.Phil. thesis, University of Cambridge. Okun, B. F. (1996), Understanding Diverse Families: What practitioners need to know, NY: The Guilford Press. Oller, D.K., Eilers, R. E., Urbano, A. and Cobo-Lewis, B. (1997), ‘Development of Precursors to Speech in Infants Exposed to Two Languages’, Journal of Child Language, 24: 407–25. Paradis, J. (1998), Book review of E. Lanza (Language Mixing in Infant Bilingualism), 1997, Journal of Child Langauge, 25: 728–33. Park, R. (1928), ‘Human Migration and the Marginal Man’, American Journal of Sociology, 33: 881–93. Parke, R.D. (1985), ‘Foreword’, in S. Hanson and F. Bozet (eds.), 9–12. Penny, J. and Khoo, S. (1996), Intermarriage: A study of migration and integration, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Pharr, S. (1976), ‘The Japanese Woman: Evolving views of life and role’, in L. Austin (ed.), Japan: The paradox of Progress, New Haven: Yale University, 301–27. Phinny, J. (1990), ‘Ethnic Identity in Adolescents and Adults: Review of research’, Psychological Bulletin, 108: 499–514. Phinny, J. and Alipuria, L. (1996), ‘At the Interface of Cultures: Multiethnic/Multiracial high school and college students, The Journal of Social Psychology, 136: 139–58. Phinny, J. and Rosenthal, D. A. (1992), ‘Ethnic Identity in Adolescence: Process, context, and outcome’, in G. Adams, P. Gullotta and R. Montemayor (eds.), Adolescent Identity Formation, London: Sage, 145–72. Phoenix, A. (1990), ‘Social Researching in the Context of Feminist Psychology’, in E. Burman (ed.), Feminists and Psychological Practice, London: Sage, 89–103.





Invisible work

Phoenix, A. (1994), ‘Practising Feminist Research: The intersection of gender and “race” in the research process’, in M. Maynard and J. Purvis (eds.), 49–71. Phoenix, A. and Woollett, A. (1991a), ‘Introduction’, in A. Pheonix, A. Woollett and E. Lloyd (eds.), 1–12. Phoenix, A. and Woollett, A. (1991b), ‘Motherhood: Social construction, politics and psychology’, in A. Pheonix, A. Woollett and E. Lloyd (eds.), 13–27. Pheonix, A., Woollett, A. and Lloyd, E. (eds.) (1991), Motherhood: Meanings, Practices, and Ideologies, London: Sage. Pleck, J. (1985), Working Wives/ Working Husbands, Beverley Hills, Carfornia: Sage. Plummer, K. (1983), Documents of Life: An introduction to the problems and literature of a humanistic method, London: George Allen and Unwin. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995), ‘Narrative in Qualitative Analysis’, in J. A. Hatch and R. Wisniewski (eds.), 5–23. Portes, A. and Hao, L. (1998), ‘E Pluribus Unum: Bilingualism and loss of language in the second generation’, Sociology of Education, 71:269–94. Qian, Z. (1997), ‘Breaking the Racial Barriers: Variations in interracial marriage between 1980 and 1990’, Demography, 34: 262–76. Rampton, B. (1995), Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents, London: Longman. Reinharz, S. (1992), Feminist Methods in Social Research, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ribbens, J. (1994), Mothers and Their Children: A feminist sociology of childrearing, London: Sage. Richards, L. and Richards, T. (1994), ‘From Filing Cabinet to Computer’, in A. Bryman and R. Burgess (eds.), 146–72. Richman, A. L., Miller, P. M. and Solomon, M. J. (1988), ‘The Socialization of Infants in Suburban Boston’, in R.A. LeVine, P.M. Miller and M.M. West (eds.), 65–74. Roberts, C. L. and Zuengler, K. L. (1985), ‘The Postparental Transition and Beyond’, in Hanson and Bozet (eds.), 196–216. Rogers, C. (1989) ‘Early Admission: Early labelling’, 94–109, in C. W. Desforges (ed.), 94–109. Rohrrich, B. (1988), ‘Dual-Culture Marriage and Communication’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12: 35–44. Romaine, S. (1983), ‘Collecting and Interpreting Self-reported data on the Language Use of Linguistic Minorities by Means of ‘Language Diaries’’, MALS Journal, 9: 1–30. Romaine, S. (1995), Bilingualism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Romaine, S. (1999), ‘Early Bilingual Development: From elite to folk’, in G. Extra and L. Verhoeven (eds.), 61–73. Ronjat, J. (1913), Le Developpement du Langage observé chez un enfant bilingue, Paris: champion. Root, M. (1992), ‘Back to the Drawing Board: Methodological issues in research on multiracial people’, in M. Root (ed.), 181–89. Root, M. (ed.) (1992), Racially Mixed People in America, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rueda, R. and Erminda, G. (1996), ‘Teachers’ Perspectives on Literacy Assessment and Instruction with Language-Minority Students: A comparative study’, The Elementary School Journal, 96: 311–32.

Bibliography

Rumberger, R. W. and Larson, K. A. (1998), ‘Toward Explaining Differences in Educational Achievement Among Mexican American Langauge-Minority Students’, Sociology of Education, 71:69–93. Safilios-Rothschilds, C. (1976), ‘A Macro- and Micro-examination of Family Power and Love: An exchange model’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38: 355–362. Saunders, G. (1982a), ‘Infant Bilingualism: A look at some doubts and objections’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development: 3: 277–92. Saunders, G. (1982b), Bilingual Children: Guidance for the family, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Saunders, G. (1988), Bilingual Children: From birth to teens, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Schecter, S.R. and Bayley, R. (1997), ‘Language Socialization Practices and Cultural Identity: Case studies of Mexican-decent families in California and Texas’, Tesol Quarterly, 31: 513–541 Schecter, S. R., Sharken-Taboada, D. and Bayley, R. (1996), ‘Bilingual by Choice: Latino Parents’ rationales and strategies for raising children with two languages’, The Bilingual Research Journal, 20:261–281. Schnepp, G. and Yui, A. (1955), ‘Cultural and Marital Adjustment of Japanese War Brides’, American Journal of Sociology, 61: 48–50. Shand, N. (1996), ‘The Transmission of Culturally Linked Behaviour Systems Through Maternal Behavoiur: Nature versus nurture revisited,’ in D. Shwalb and B. Shwalb (eds.), 260–78. Shichida, M. (1995), Bilingual Education Using Right Hemisphere: Starting English, womb to 6 year olds (Uno Katsuyo-shiki bairingaru kyoiku: Eigo wa taiji kara rokusai made ni hajimeyo)’, Tokyo: Aruku Publications. Shwalb, D. and Shwalb, B. (1996), ‘Introduction: Looking back’, in D. Shwalb and B. Shwalb (eds.), 1–8. Shwalb, D., Shwalb, B. and Shoji, J. (1996), ‘Japanese Mothers’ Ideas about Infants and Temperament’, in S. Harkness and C.M. Super (eds.), 169–91. Shwalb, D. and Shwalb, B. (eds.) (1996), Japanese Childrearing: Two generations of scholarship, New York: Guilford Press. Singh, R., Lele, J. and Martohardjono, G. (1988), ‘Communicating in a Multilingual Society: Some missed opportunities’, Language in Society, 17: 43–59. Sprey, J.P. (1979), ‘Conflict Theroy and the Study of Marriage and the Family’, in W. Burr , R. Hill, F.I. Nye and I. Reiss (eds.), Contemporary Theories about the Family (vol. 2), New York: The Free Press, 130–59. Steinberg, S. (1981), The Ethnic Myth: Race, ethnicity, and class in America, Boston: Beacon Press. Stevens, G. and Swicegood, G. (1987), ‘The Linguistic Context of Ethnic Endogamy’, American Sociological Review, 52: 73–82. Stone, M. (1981), The Education of the Black Child in Britain: The myth of multiracial education, London: Fontana. Stonequist, E. V. (1937), The Marginal Man: A study of personality and culture conflict, New York: Russell and Russell. Strand, S. (1998), ‘A “Value Added” Analysis of the 1996 Primary School Performance Tables’, Educational Research, 40: 123–37.





Invisible work

Strauss, A. (1954), ‘Strain and Harmony in American-Japanese War-Bride Marriages’, Marriage and Family Living, 16: 99–106. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sugimoto, Y. and Mouer, R. (1989), ‘Cross-Currents in the Study of Japanese Society’, in Y. Sugimoto and R. Mouer (eds.), Constructs for Understanding Japan, London: KPI, 1–35. Sung, B. (1990), ‘Chinese American Intermarriage’, Journal of Comparative family Studies, 21: 337–52. Taeschner, T. (1983), The Sun is Feminine: A study of language acquisition in bilingual children, Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Tajfel, H. (1978), The Social Psychology of Minorities, New York: Minority Rights Group. Tajfel, H. (ed.) (1981), Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in social psychology, New York: Cambridge University Press. Takagi, D.Y. (1994), ‘Japanese American Families’, in R.L. Taylor (ed.), 146–63. Taylor, C. (1994), ‘The Politics of Recognition’, in A. Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition, N.J. Princeton University Press, 25–73. Taylor, R.L. (1994), ‘Minority Families in America: An introduction’, in R.L. Taylor (ed.), 1–16. Taylor, R. L. (ed.) (1994), Minority Families in the United States: A multicultural perspective, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tesch, R. (1990), Qualitative Research: Analysis types and software tools, New York: Falmer. Thompson, L. and Walker, A. (1989), ‘Gender in Families: Women and men in marriage, work and parenthood’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51: 845–71. Thorogood, N. (1987), ‘Race, Class and Gender: The politics of housework’, in J. Brannen and G. Wilson (eds.), Give and Take in Families: Studies in resource distribution, Hemel Hampstead: Allen and Unwin, 18–41. Tinker, J. (1973), ‘Intermarriage and Ethnic Boundaries: The Japanese American case’, The Journal of Social Issues,29: 49–66. Tizard, B. (1991), ‘Employed Mothers and the Care of Young Children’, in A. Pheonix., A. Woollett and E. Lloyd (eds.), 178–194. Tizard, B. and Hughes, M. (1984), Young Children Learning: Talking and thinking at home and at school, London: Fontana. Tizard, B. and Phoenix, A. (1993), Black, White or Mixed Race?: Race and racism in the lives of young people of mixed parentage, London: Routledge. Tonkin, E. (1994), ‘Engendering Language Difference’, in P. Burton, K.K. Dyson and S. Ardener (eds.), 186–92. Tripp-Reimer, T. and Wilson, S. E. (1991), ‘Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Fatherhood’ in F. Bozett and S. Hanson (eds.), 1–27. Ueno, C. (1994), ‘Women and the Family in Transition in Postindustrial Japan’, in J. Gelb and M.L. Pally (eds.), 23–42. Varro, G. (1988), The Transplanted Woman: A study of French-American marriage in France, New York: Paeger. Verma, G. and Ashworth, B. (1986), Ethnicity and Educational Achievement in British Schools, London: Macmillan. Vaillant, C. O. and Vaillant, G. E. (1993), ‘Is the U-curve of Marital Satisfaction an Illusion?: A 40-year study of marriage’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 230–39.

Bibliography

Voysey, M. (1975), A Constant Burden: The reconstitution of family life, London: Routledge and Kagan Paul. Walkerdine, V. (1984) ‘Developmental psychology and the child-centred pedagogy: Crossgenerational effects on the development of children’, in M. Richards, and P. Light (eds.) Children of Social Worlds, Cambridge: Polity Press. Walkerdine, V. (1993) ‘Beyond Developmentalism?’, Theory and Psycology, 3: 451–70. Walkerdine, V. and Lucey, H. (1989), Democracy in the Kitchen: Regulating mothers and socialising daughters, London: Virago. Wallman, S. (1979), Ethnicity at Work, London: Macmillan. Walters, K. (1996), ‘Gender, Identity, and the Political Economy of Language: Anglophone wives in Tunisia’, Language in Society, 25: 515–55. Welles-Nystrom, B. (1988), ‘Parenthood and Infancy in Sweden’, in R.A. LeVine, P.M. Miller and M.M. West (eds.), 75–80. West, C. and Zimmerman, D. (1987), ‘Doing Gender’, Gender and Society, 1: 125–51. West, M. M. (1988), ‘Parental Values and Behavior in the Outer Fiji Islands’, in R. A. LeVine, P.M. Miller and M.M. West (eds.), 13–25. Wetzel, P. J. (1988), ‘Are “Powerless” Communication Strategies the Japanese Norm?’, Language and Society, 17, 555–64. White, D. and Woollett, A. (1992), Families: A context for development, London: Falmer. Williams, C. (1995), ‘How Black Children Might Survive Education’, in M. Griffiths and B. Troyna (eds.), Antiracism, Culture and Social Justice in Education, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books, 149–61. Williams, N. (1995), ‘Introduction (for the special issue devoted to: Cultural Diversity in American Family Life)’, Journal of Family Issues, 16: 244–45. Williams, N., Himmel, K. F., Sjoberg, A.F. and Torrez, D.J. (1995), ‘The Assimilation Model, Family Life, and Race and Ethnicity in the United States’, Journal of Family Issues, 16: 380–405. Williams, T. (1992), ‘Prism Lives: Identity of binational Amerasians’, in M. Root (ed.), 280–303. Williams, T. and Thornton, M. C. (1998), ‘Social Construction of Ethnicity Versus Personal Experience: The case of Afro-Amerasians, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 29: 255–67. Wilson, A. (1981a), ‘Mixed Race Children: An exploratory study of racial categorisation and identity’, New community, 9: 36–43. Wilson, A. (1981b), ‘In-Between: The mother in the interracial family’, New Community, 9: 208–15. Wilson, A. (1984), ‘”Mixed Race” Children in British Society: Some theoretical considerations’, The British Journal of Sociology, 35: 42–61. Wilson, A. (1987), Mixed-Race Children: A study of identity, London: Allen and Unwin. Wilson, P. & Pahl, R. (1988), ‘The Changing Sociological Construct of the Family’, Sociological Review, 36: 233–66. Wolf, A. W., Lazoff, B., Latz, S. and Paludetto, R. (1996), ‘Parental Theories in the Management of Young Children’s Sleep in Japan, Italy, and the United States’, in S. Harkness and C.M. Super (eds.), 364–84.





Invisible work

Woodhead, Martin (1989) ‘Is Early Education Effective?’, in C.W. Desforges (ed.), 128–143. Woodhead, M. (1997) ‘Psychology and the Cultural Construction of Children’s Needs’, in A. James and A. Prout (eds.), Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood, London: Falmer Press, 63–84. Woodrum, E. (1987), ‘An Assessment of Japanese-American Assimilation, Pluralism, and Subordination’, American Journal of Sociology, 1: 157–69. Woolard, K. A. (1997), ‘Between Friends: Gender, peer group structure, and bilingualism in Urban Catalonia, Language in Society, 26: 533–60. Woollett, A. (1995), ‘Mothers’ Accounts of the Involvement in Childcare of British Asian Fathers: The impact of culture and the wider family’, paper presented to Society of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, Annual Conference, University of Leicester, September 1995. Woollett, A., Marshall H., Nicholson, P. and Dosanjh N. (1994), ‘Asian Women’s Ethnic Identity: The impact of gender and context in the accounts of women bringing up children in East London’ in K. Bhavnani and A. Phoenix (eds.), Shifting Identities, Shifting Racisms: Feminism and psychology reader, London: Sage, 119–32. Woollett, A. and Phoenix, A. (1991), ‘Psychological Views of Mothering’, in A. Pheonix, A. Woollett and E. Lloyd (eds), 28–46. Woollett A. and Phoenix, A. (1991) ‘Afterword: Issues related to motherhood, in A. Pheonix., A. Woollett and E. Lloyd (eds.), 216–231 Wyche, K. F. and Crosby, F. J. (1996), Women’s Ethnicities: Journeys through psychology, Oxford: Westview Press. Yeandle, S. (1984), Women’s Working Lives: Patterns and strategies, London: Tavistock. Yoshino, K. (1992), Cultural Nationalism in Comtemporary Japan, London: Routledge. Young, M & Wilmott, P. (1962), Family and Kinship in East London, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Zentella, A. C. (1997), Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York, Oxford: Blackwell.

Appendix 1 Summary information of participant families (in-depth study) family name 01 ANDREWS

name of mother father

Aki Anthony 02 APPLEBY Atsuko Ashley 03 AVERY Asayo 04 COOK Chizuko Cyril 05 CORBY Chiaki Collin 06 EMERSON Emi Eric 07 ERICSON Etsuko Edward 08 FARRELL Fusayo Fred 09 FINDLAY Fumi Frank 10 HARRISON Hisako Henry 11 HOPE Harumi Harry 12 INWOOD Ikuko Ian 13 IRVINE Iyo Ivan 14 JEFFRIES Junko Jim 15 KERR Kana Kevin

age

education

first child’s age gp

number domicile of children

E 30s E 40s L 40s E 50s E 40s E 50s L50s L 30s L 30s L 30s L 40s L 20s L 30s E 30s E 30s L 40s L 40s L 20s L 30s L 40s L 40s L 40s L 40s E 40s L 30s E 30s E 40s E 40s L 30s

OT U U U+ U H H U OT U U U H U U H H U U U H OT U+ U U+ U U U+ U+

2

2

M ++

4

2

R–

3 5

2 3

RC – R–

2

2

M ++

3

2

M ++

2

1

M+

2

2

M ++

3

2

M ++

1

1

RC +

4

2

RC ++

3

2

R–

2

3

M ++

2

3

M ++

2

2

M ++



Invisible work

family name

name of mother father

16 KIRKLAND Kimi Kenneth 17 MANNI

Michi Masayo Matthew NAYLOR Noriko Nick NICHOLS Natsuko Nigel RANKIN Ritsuko Richard ROGERS Reiko SHARPE Sumie Simon SORENSEN Sachiko Steve THOMPSON Tae Trevor THRUSH Tami WARING Wakako WELSH Wakiko William

18 MOSS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

age

education

first child’s age gp

number domicile of children

E 40s E 40s L 30s L 30s E 50s L 30s L 30s 4E L 40s E 40s L 30s E 50s L 30s E 40s L 40s E 50s L 40s E 50s E 50s L 40s L 40s L 50s

H U U U U U OT U+ U+ OT U U H H H OT OT H H U U U+

2

3

M ++

4 2

1 2

M ++ R–

2

2

RC +

4

2

RC +

3

2

RC +

5 4

1 3

M ++ R–

5

1

RC –

4

3

RC +

4 4 4

3 1 1

RC – RC + R–

Legend age E 30s = early 30s L 30s = late 30s, etc. education H high school / secondary OT other tertiary institution U university U+ post graduate first child’s age gp (first child’s age group) 1 = 0–3 2 = 4–7 3 = 8–12 4 = 13–18 5 = 18+

domicile M Metropolitan RC Regional City R Rural ++ many Japanese residents (long, short term) + some Japanese residents – few Japanese residents (Note: All names have been changed in order to protect the privacy of participants. All information relates to the time of interviewing.)

Appendix 2 Translation of Japanese questionnaire



Invisible work

Appendix 2





Invisible work

Appendix 3 Summary of interview guides a) Mothers (originally in Japanese) Introduction – – – – – – – –

description of research confidentiality practicalities self-introduction purposes procedure confidentiality recording permission

domain, theme, topic

questions, prompts

1.

Q1 Could you please tell me briefly about your background — where you were born, lived, your family, your childhood, starting work, marriage…? 1.1 — family you grew up in; what your parents did/ do; brothers and sisters 1.2 ‘marriage’ — meeting your partner; marrying someone from the UK; response from people around

Life history

Q2 Could you please tell me what an ordinary (working) day is like? (for older mothers, when the children were small, when they started school) How about weekends? 2.

Childrearing approach [principles and style]

Q3 Could you please tell me about your childrearing approach? For example, what kind of things are important, what to do when stopping the children from doing undesirable things (discipline), etc. 3.1 ‘comparison’ — similarities and differences with your own mother’s approach 3.2 ‘comparison’ — similarities and differences between your own childhood and your child(ren)’s?



Invisible work

3.

[intention, and practice ] [wife’s, and jointly]

Q4 How would you describe your husband’s childrearing approach, and yours together? 4.1 specific things that you mainly do and others that your husband does? 4.2 do you talk about it with your husband? 4.3 about how your husband wanted to raise your child

Language use [decision] important factors

Q5 Can you explain how your family decided what language(s) you and your husband would speak to your child, and the main reasons? 5.1 most important reason and why 5.2 does your husband speak any other language? 5.3 additional things if nec.; communication with partner; conflicts, pressures; encouragement; husband’s view

importance of Japanese

Q6 Some people think it’s a good idea to be able to speak more than one language and to use more than one language around the house. What do you think? 6.1 in what way; why good/bad? 6.2 important for children to know Japanese? 6.3 what does/did your husband think?

change over time [important factors]

Q7 Could you please tell me whether or not language use in your home has changed, and how it happened, and any memorable incidents related to the change? 7.1 advice from someone? asked for it? 7.2 ‘practical conditions’ related to learning Japanese, Japanese school, support from Japanese community, Japan 7.3 husband’s feelings about change

[child’s development and needs] social

7.4 change in childrens’ attitudes 7.5 change as child/ren grows older in relationships and interaction with other Japanese people — e.g. friends — and your own, say before and after they started school 7.6 some people talk about bilingualism resulting in language delay — how about the development of Japanese/English for your child, and how you felt about it? 7.7 pressures from school or society at large, and responses 7.8 ‘school’ choice of school; teaching Japanese

Appendix 3

and other educational considerations; responsibility for English language development; homework; involvement in school activities Q8 Some people say that going back to Japan every now and again is good for language maintenance. How about in your case? 8.1 last trip to Japan 8.2 importance of trips for the family and you yourself 8.3 how often would you like to go back? Difficult to plan? [effects of language on childrearing] if the arrangement were different

Q9 If you had/hadn’t tried to speak Japanese to your child/ren, in what ways would things have been different? (relations with children, husband, and family as a whole) 9.1 if husband had spoken only English/Japanese? 9.2 effects of language arrangements on how children are being raised; would you behave differently? Q10 How has it been to live in the UK for you? What kind of things do you find difficult? (family, work, relationships with relatives, and in general) 10.1 how Japanese/British would you say you are? In what ways? Do you know anyone more Japanese/British than you? In what ways?

5.

Future hopes

Debriefing

Q11 Could you tell me something about your hopes for the future, where you would like to live and why, and for your childrens’ future? – – – –

any other questions I should have asked and did not? feedback confidentiality thanks





Invisible work

b) Fathers Introduction – – – – – – – –

description of research confidentiality practicalities self-introduction purposes procedure confidentiality recording permission

domain, theme, topic

questions, prompts

1.

Life history

Q1 Could you please tell me briefly about your background — where you were born, lived, your family, your childhood, starting work, marriage…? 1.1 ‘family’ — family you grew up in; what your parents did/ do; brothers and sisters 1.2 ‘marriage’ — meeting your wife; marrying someone from Japan; response from people around

2.

Childrearing approach [principles and style]

Q2 What kind of things do you enjoy in childrearing, and what things do you find difficult? What do you do when your child/ren needs to learn rules/better behaviour? 2.1 ‘comparison’ — similarities and differences with your own father’s approach 2.2 ‘comparison’ — similarities and differences between your own childhood and your child(ren)’s?

[intention, and practice ] [wife’s, and jointly]

3.

Language use [decision] important factors

2.3 ‘work’— satisfied with time spent with children? Q3 Do you generally concur with your wife about how to relate with your children, or are there points of disagreement? 3.1 specific things that you mainly do and others that your wife does? 3.2 talk about it with your wife? 3.3 about how your wife wanted to raise your child Q4 Can you explain how your family decided what language(s) you and your wife would speak to your child, and the main reasons? 4.1 most important reason and why 4.2 do you speak any other language?

Appendix 3

importance of Japanese

Q5 Some people think it’s a good idea to be able to speak more than one language and to use more than one language around the house. What do you think? 5.1 in what way? 5.2 important for children to know Japanese?

change over time [important factors]

Q6 Could you please tell me whether or not language use in your home has changed, and how you felt about it? Do you speak Japanese — when, why? 6.1 advice from someone? asked for it? 6.2 ‘practical constraints’ — trips to Japan, Japanese school, etc. 6.3 partner’s feeling about change

[child’s development and needs]

if the arrangement were different

Debriefing

6.4 change in childrens’ attitudes 6.5 ‘school’ — teaching Japanese and other educational considerations; important things at school; homework; involvement in school activities (effects of language on childrearing) Q7 If your family’s language use was different — e.g. if your wife had spoken only English/Japanese; or you had/had not tried to speak Japanese — what would have been different? (e.g. between you and your children, you and your wife, your family as a whole) 7.1 effect on how your children are being raised? – – – –

any other questions I should have asked and did not? feedback confidentiality thanks



Index

accommodation - of difficult demands 226 - simultaneous 3, 226-27 - achievement 28 adaptation, of mothers 102 adolescence 196, 198, 224, affiliations 206-7 after-school activities 189, 191 agents 9, 25, 26, 43 Allen 35 Allison 22 ‘amae’ (dependance) 21 Ambert 230 America (US) 15, 18, 29 American mothers 17 - wives 15, 16, 36 - women 16 - constant comparison method of 60 - flexibility in 60 - paradigmatic analysis in life history method 44, 45 - simultaneous process of data generation and, 60, 61 analysis (of the data) 39, 42, 44, 45 Anderson 61 Andrews 46 Apter 194 Armstrong 42, 43, 44 Arnberg 1, 27, 30, 32, 36, 107 Asian women in the UK 46 Askham 62 assessment (judgement) at school 121

Association of Japanese women married to non-Japanese men (Nami-no-Kai) 47, 69, 107, 158 Australia 30 Azuma 22, 36 Azuma et al. 22 Backett 9, 12, 13, 33, 35, 62 Baetens Beardsmore 28, 233 Baker 27, 28, 30, 36, 74, 86, 184 balancing needs (demands) 225, 226 Ballard 35 Barbara 14 Bennet and Kell 165, 189, 190 Berger and Kelner 8 Berheide 35 Bernard 35 Bernstein 184 Bhachu 24, 35, 45, 62 bicultural 15 bilingualism 2, 16, 26-34 - conditional acceptance of (mothers’ feeling) 122, 166, 167, 189, 223 - definitions of 36 - negative attitudes towards 96 - negative effects of (worrying about) 115 - prejudice against 30, 36 - studies of 52, 107, 227, 232 - underlying assumptions on 98, 101, 106, 119 bilingual-child rearing 2, 15-17, 26-34, 142, 176, 232-33 - advice on 30, 142, 230, 233 - and assertiveness of the mother 188



Invisible work

- and parental beliefs 233 - books on 27, 30, 36, 139, 143 - dynamics of 29, 292 - experiences 52 - marriage and 118, 148 - ‘mother blaming’ in (perceived) 115, 166, 226, 194 - mothers being sensitive about 116-17 - social context of 31, 232 - social difficulties in 112-13 - socio-historical context of 103 bilingual children 28 biography 9, 44 Blau et al. 14 Blumer 54 Bogdan 43 Bornstein et al. 22 Boulton 12, 13, 32, 33, 35 Bowlby 36 Bozzett and Hanson 13 Bradley 13 Brannen 40, 55, 56 Bronfenbrenner 32 Brown and Gilligan 53, 54 Burgess 42 Burgoyne and Clark 43, 62 career 15, 16 Cauce et al. 35 Caudill 36 Caudill and Weinstein 36 change 25 - historical 25 - institutional and interpersonal 14 - process of 25, 48 Channer 62 Chester 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 35 childcare 12, 13 child-centredness (in childrearing) 31-33, 37, 142, 148, 158 - and bilingual-child rearing 188 - non child-centred approach 224 childrearing 13, 26-34, 44, 52, 95, 102, 115, - and culture 36 - and fathers’ life history 156

- and gender 2, 10-14, 232 - and mothers’ age 141-42, 144, 145, 15758, 159, 223 - and mothers’ life history 141, 144, 148, 201 - anxieties about 138 - complexities of childrearing dynamics 1 - context of (see context) - cross-cultural studies of 22-26, 232 - difficulties in 95, 116, 117, 143, 144, 149 - emotional aspect of 26 - experience of 53, 149, 222 - frustration in 117 - intermarried families 26 - process of 26 - socio-historical context of 25, 145 - stress in 147, 150, 153, 154, 159 children - growing autonomy (independence) of 126, 127, 193, 194-96, 216, 217, 224 - identity and ethnicity of 209-11 - in intermarriage 17 - readiness for school work 169, see also school - social adjustment of 164-65, 188 - temperament and health of 149-50, 159 Chinese characters (Kanji) 126, 278, 187, 190, 199 Chinese families 19 Clancy 35 Clark 9 Cleave and Brown 164, 189, 190 Clulow 12, 13, 35, 231 coding of data 59, 60 Cohen 12, 35 competing demands 161, 170, 177 compromise (of fathers and mothers) 198, 202, 216, 217 communication - between couples 116 - with children 25, 27, 124 communicative needs 111, 125 communicative satisfaction 89, 105, 222 companionship (in marriage) 10

Index

comparisons - mothers making 120, 122-23, 143, 162, 176 complexities 25, 31, 34, 42, 56, 59, 60, 200, 220 concepts in data analysis 60, 61 - organising 59, 60 - sub 59, 60 conceptualization 59 conditional matrix 59, 61 confidence - building (of the child) 188, 189 - of the child (at the beginning of their school career) 162-66 conflicts 13, 146, 224-25 - inside the father 148 - inside the mother 112, 131, 147, 148, 224-25 - of interest 11, 30 - of needs 32, 224 - of time 30 conflict theories (in family studies) 8 Constantinidou 135 context 9, 19, 25, 26, 30, 34 - macro 102-5 - micro 99-102, 104, 105 - of bilingual-child rearing 33 - of childrearing 10, 25, 33 - of ‘real life’ families 30 - research on 30 - situational 101-2, 106, 111, 114, 122, 144, 208, 213, 227 - social (see social context) - socio-historical 19, 42, 43, 48, 84, 102 - urban-industrial 18 core category 59 Cottrell 14, 15, 16, 35, 141 Cowan et al. 12, 35, 62 Crester 14 Creswell 61 critical perspective 18 cross-cultural studies - of Japanese childrearing 18, 22-25 - of Japanese mothers 18, 22-25 cross-national marriages 15

‘culture’ 14, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 45, 81, 97, 143, 189, 203, 213, 217, 221 - intra-group differences 21 - ‘Japanese culture’ 21-25, 175, 199, 212, 213 cultural conflict approach (in intermarriage studies) 15, 227 cultural dimensions of fatherhood 13 cultural values 18, 19 Czaja and Blair 69 daily life 28 Daly 42 data 44 45 - accuracy of 58 - generation 42, 45, 46, 48, 50, 56, 60, 220, 226, 230, 231 - translating 60 - comprehension of 60 David 28, 32, 184 David et al. 28 David, West and Ribbens 44 decision making 11, 99-102 De Houwer 29, 31, 33, 233 Delphy and Leonard 11, 35 demographic change (as an influence on childrearing) 25 Denzin 40, 42 DES (Department for Education and Science) 190 DeVault 11, 27, 35, 226 developmental psychology 22, 23, 24, 28, 230, 231 dilemmas 133, 137, 173, 189, 229, 232 - inherent in bilingual-child rearing 226 - over language use 1, 124 Dillman 69 Dilworth-Anderson 9 Dilworth-Anderson et al. 41 disadvantage 162-65 - mothers worriying about 133, 163, 168, 170 - perceiving 162, 165, 166, 175 diversity 24, 25, 41, 42, 45, 59 - regional and class 23





Invisible work

division of labour (gendered) 10, 11, 24, 115-16, 119, 120, 123, 133, 137, 138, 138-42, 145, 146, 158, 159, 162, 181, 189, 200, 213, 217, 222, 223, 225, 227, 228 - and language use 50, 220 - childrearing experiences, in 50 - reasons to stay at home (mothers) 139 doctors, see health professionals Doi 21 Doman 190 Döpke 27, 29, 30, 31-33, 36 Dosanjh and Shuman 21, 63 double burden (of women in the family) 10 Dowling 190 Drummond 190 ‘earlier the better’ approach (in bilingualchild rearing) 142, 143, 145, 158, 179, 212, 223 economic change 11 economic situation 19 economic status 14 Edgell 11, 13, 35, 42, 62 education, see also school - as bilingual research focus 28 - background of couples in intermarriage 14 educational positioning (of the parents) 180, 183-84, 189 Edward 28 Eisenstadt 32, 172 Elder 9 emotional dimension of bilingual-child rearing 144, 146, 224-27, 229 emotional burden 12 emotionally demanding work 12, 224-26, 229. 230 emotional work 11, 12, 226 emotional issues of mothers/parents 26, 128 employment - of mothers 27, 73, 138, 141-42, 204-8, 232 - of fathers 73

- paid employment 10, 12 English speaking (Japanese) mothers 13032 ethnically diverse families 17, 34 ethnic identity, see identity ethnicity 2, 3, 14, 19, 91, 91, 143 - and language 183 - child’s 183, 209-211 (see also children) - fathers’ 214 - Japanese 21 - mothers’ 193, 211-12 - situational 2, 3, 17, 18, 19-21, 34, 21113, 216, 218, 232 ethnic minority families 18-19 ethnic theory 17 exchange theory (in family studies) 26 exploratory studies 28, 42, 48, 85 experiences, see also mothers - as a focus in the interview 50 - childhood experiences (of mothers and fathers) 55 - childrearing 52, 55 - individual 14, 42 - mothers and fathers, of 13 - mothers in Japan, of 204-5 - of ethnic minority families 19 family 12, 17, 22, 28, 41, 56 - and public spheres of social life 161 - changing relations and language use 193, 194, 196, 203 - cross-cultural studies of 22-25 - dynamics 34, 55, 81, 84 - goals 14 - ideologies 14 - in context 19 - influence of adolescent years on 196 - influence of partners’ 92, 100 - life 11, 12 - life stage 47, 227 - relationships 3 - studies 2, 8-14. 10 - studies of 13, 17, 34, 42, 43, 45, 57, 62, 231, 233 - tensions in later years 198

Index

- work, definition of 11 - work 12 family in Japan (the mothers’) 90-91, 92, 97, 150-53 fathers 13, 28, 36, 107, 112-18, 119-20, 128-29, 139, 140, 148, 173-75, 183, 189, 209, 223, 224, 228 - and their work 140, 142 - input of (as data) 13 - interviewing (see interviews) - isolation of 113, 116, 120, 123, 126, 148, 153, 181, 198, 200, 201, 212, 217, 230 - selection of informants 47-48 - studies of 13-14 - support from 115-16, 145, 146, 150-53, 154, 157, 198, 223 - values 180-81, 189 - cultural dimension of 14 - studies of 13-14 fatherhood 13, 14 fathering 13 feeding (work) 12 Feiring and Lewis 12 Ferree 11, 35 Finch 11, 55, 62, 63, 219 Finch and Summerfield 10 Finch and Mason 13, 62 ‘finding a place’ - for mothers 196, 203-8, 212, 217, 224, 232 - for fathers 209 flexibility in language use 88 fluidity - of ethnic boundaries 20 - of identity 211 Fontana and Frey 45 forcing children (to do things) - attitudes towards 180-81, 182 - ‘for the child’s sake’ 181, 182 Fowler 69 France 15, 16 Freeland 33 French (language) 29 Fries 28, 228, 229, 230 Fujimura Fanselow and Kameda 95

functionalist approach (in family studies) 8 Furedi 218 Gelb and Pally (eds.) 25 gender 24, 221, 228, 233 - and childrearing 10-14, 17, 23, 26, 33, 232 - inequality 11 - roles 11 generalisability 33, 39, 227-29 generalisations 9, 45, 59, 220 - empirical 62, 218 - theoretical 40, 62, 218 generational differences 24 Genesee 31 German (language) 29 Ghaye and Pascal 190 Gibbs and Hines 35 Gilligan 46 Gjerde 35 Glaser and Strauss 45, 60, 61 Glenn 11, 13, 19, 24, 35 Glenn and Yap 19 Goeble-Noguch 33 Goodman 22 Goodz 27, 29, 31, 33 Gordon 33 grandparents 19 grounded-theory 39, 42, 59, 61, 107 guiding hypotheses (for the survey) 61 Hall 35 Harding and Riley 1. 30. 32, 36, 88, 107 Harkness and Super 22 Hareven 9 health professionals (health visitors, doctors) 78, 96, 103, 107 health visitors 103, 107, 114, 115, 134, 154, 157 historical time 9, 43, 96, 105 Hoffman 36 holistic - approach (in understanding people’s experiences 231 - explanation 62





Invisible work

housework, see work Hsui 135 husbands 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, see also fathers Hwang et al. 14 identity (-ies) 3, 11, 16, 17, 27, 91, 127, 183, 211 - see also mothers and children - and employment 27, 127 - and language use 128 - ethnic 14, 20 - problems (of mothers) 33 - social 20 ideology of family life 11 Imamura 14, 23, 36, 141 Imamura ed. 25 in-depth study 48 informants (of the in-depth study) 47 information (on bilingual-child rearing and on childrearing in general) 78, 95, 98-99, 100, 101, 113, 142, 143, 213 - lack of 95, 96, 106, 120, 138, 145, 152, 153, 159, 162, 176, 185, 222 - seekers 143, 159, 179, 225 initial language decision 87-108, 222 Ingleby 26 insistence on minority language 27, 32 interactionist approach (in family studies) 8 interdisciplinary approach 24, 28, 33, 36, - need for 28, 231, 232, 233 - studies of childrearing 24 - trends towards 33, 34 intermarried families 2, 21, 26, 34 intermarriage 13, 27, 29, 31, 35 - studies 7, 14-17, 18, 23, 231 - marital relationships in 14 - structural foctors in 138, 141, 144, 193, 211 - war brides 15 interviews - ethical considerations in 55-56 - in-depth 2, 39, 40, 42, 45-46, 50-56, 270

- interviewee experiencing the 54, 63 - language issues in 53, 57, 58-59 - semi-structured 45-46, 220 - time constraints in 49, 50, 52, 53, 54 - transcribing the 60 - with children 56-57 - with the fathers 53, 59 - with the older mothers 54, 55, 58 - with the younger mothers 54, 55, 58 interviewer 46, 52, 53, 63 - commitment of 56 - investing the identity of 56 - responsibility of 56 interviewing - as social interaction 45-46, 50, 51, see also research relationship - positioning in 52, 53, 55, 58 invisible 4, 11, 12, 14, 27, 34, 159, 184, 231 - work 10, 12, 17, 26, 33, 226-27, 229 - structure 11 - mothers 2, 28, 33, 229 - process and influences 39, 43 isolation (mothers’ feelings of) 91, 93, 99, 117, 127, 141, 254, 158, 196, 199, 202, 205-6 ‘it has to be now’ approach (in bilingualchildrearing and childrearing in general) 139, 142, see also ‘the earlier the better’ approach) Iwao 25 James and Prout 230, 231 Japanese (language) 114 - in the interviews 58 Japanese (people) - living in the UK 41, 220 - long-term residents in the UK 5, 65, 6668 - short-term residents in the UK 5, 65, 668, 153, 156, 157, 178, 179 - fathers 24 - mothers 22-25 - childrearing 2, 22-25, 34

Index

Japanese-British intermarried families in the UK 40, 44, 46 - division of labour in 138-41 Japanese community (influence from) 101 Japanese culture/ethnicity 21-25 Japanese ethnicity 21-25 Japanese reading and writing 124, 133, 161, 177-80, 182, 184-92, 223, 224 - and educational positioning 184 - and Japanese Supplementary School 179-80 - and reasons for initial use (decision) 182 - difficulty in mothers teaching 178 - dropping 186-87, 189, 195 - financial aspect of 179 Japanese Supplementary School (JSS) 107, 126, 178, 179, 180, 190, 200, 201, 212 Japanese women 24, 34, - stereotypes of 3, 7 - working situation of 159 job prospects for children (parents’ hopes) 97, 106 Johnson 35 Johnson and Warren 14 ‘joyfulness of speech’ 233 Kaægitçibas, i 231 Kamo 11 Kashiwagi 23, 24, 25 Kashiwagi and Wakamatsu 24 Kasuya 29, 33 Ke 190 Kikumura and Kitano 14 Knowledge, production of 32, 34, 44, 45, 53, 230, 231 Komter 11, 13, 35 Koski and Steinberg 193, 224 Kumon Method 121, 123, 139, 143, 145, 155, 156, 177, 178, 179, 180, 191, 223 Lamb 13 Lambert and Taylor 29 language 12, 26-34 - choice 43, 44, 80-81

- decision 48, 141, see also initial language decision - delay anxiety (English language) 118, 123, 133, 146, 153, 189 - learning history 30 - related work 14, 18, 25, 27, 28, 93, 105, 146 - transmission 12 language use 43 - and child-centredness, 148, see also child-centredness - and identity, see identity - and mothers’ life history 130-32 - and mothers’ work situation 127 - change in 109-35, 222 Language in Society 233 Lanza 29, 31, 33, 233 LaRossa and LaRossa 12, 13, 24, 54, 55, 60, 62 Laslett 9 Lavin 11 LeVine 12, 18, 25, 26, 184 LeVine and Montero 14 LeVine and White 25 Lee and Yamanaka 14 life course approach 8-9, 17, 34, 42, 221, 233 life history (individual’s) 43, 44, 62 life history method 2, 3, 39, 41, 42-45, 59, 220, 221, 233 - interviews 44 life stages, influence of 204 linguistic studies 26, 33 - of child language 26 - of own children 29, 30 linguist parents 29, 31 literacy 135 - early introduction of (English) 123, 133, 223 - introduction of Japanese 124, 133, 177, 223 - over-burdening the child with 124, 133, 189, see also Japanese reading and writing





Invisible work

longitudinal case studies (of bilingual children) 29 Lucey 37 Mackey 26, 28 Mackey and O’Brien 196, 218 Mandelbaum 42, 45 Mansfield and Collard 13, 42, 62 marginality 17 marital relationships 15, 16, 218 - in informant families 196-203 - role 42 marriage 8, 10, 12, 13, 62, 113 - bilingual-child rearing and, see bilingual-child rearing - companionate 10 - equality in 10, 13 - satisfaction in 12 marginalized, mother’s feeling 199 Marshall 12, 56, 80, 159 Marjoribanks 28 Mauer and Sugimoto 21 maternal nature (discussion of) 23 Mason 40, 45, 50, 61, 62, 220 Maynard and Purvis 56 McKee 13, 35 McDonald 135 McKee and O’Brien 13, 14 methodology 22-25, 29, 31, 34, 57 minority families 21, 41 minority children 28 minority language development 29 Mintel 13 Mills 42 Mirande 13 mixed-parentage families14 monitoring 12, 225, 227 - of the normal development of the child, 143, 159 Morgan 8, 9, 13, 35 Morris 11, 12, 35 mothering 12, 13, 142 - pro-activist, see pro-activist mothering

mothers 12, 13, 16, 28, 36 - as a language teacher 27, 31-33, 126, 131, 178 - aspirations, 147, 148, 183, 193, 194, 196, 203-8 - attitude 29 - being sensitive 121-22, 162, 172 - beliefs 29 - experiences 30, 33, 48, 183 - feeling guilty 122, 163, 165, 182, 189 - identity 193, 196, 203-8 - identity and language use 127, 194 - life history 204, 205 - minority 27, 193, 225-26 - own needs 127 - structural situation of 27 - who chose to speak English 91-94, 130-32, - who did not make a clear decision 94-96 - work 26, 36 mother-child relations 23 mothers-in-law - in Japan 201, 214 - in the UK 102, 104, 112, 129, 150, 199, 200, 214 motherhood, ‘proper’ 32 motivation 29 multiculturalism 27, 229, 230 multiple context 221 multiple method 3, 39, 40-41 myth of family unity 11 Nakamura 21 Namie 85 narrative (in life history method) 44 ‘natural(ly)’ 80, 98, 105, 107, 115, 139, 149, see also unnatural - mothers’ perspective 88, 89, 148, 157, 222 - fathers’ views 100, 115, 119, 131, 146, 149, 159, 213, 223, 230 negotiation (parent-child) 195, 196, 197, 199 Nihonjin-ron (theory of Japanese and Japaneseness) 21 Nitta 14, 23

Index

Nud*ist (non-numerical unstructured data indexing, searching, and theorising-computer software for qualitative data analysis) 59, 60 Oakley 11, 53, 55, 62 observation (in the research) 20 ‘old hearth ties’ 90-91, 92, 105, 111, 222 Okamura 20, 21 Okita 19, 35, 42, 44, 47, 68, 88, 216, 220 parenthood 10, 12, 13 - transition to 24 - socially and historically constructed images of 13 - reality of 13 parenting, see childrearing parents 25, 28 - aspirations 16, 111, 130 190, 195, 227 - attitudes in studies of bilingualism 28, 31 - awareness (as language teachers) 31 - as language teachers 31-33, see also mothers - beliefs in studies of cross-cultural childrearing 22 - childhood of 26 - different perception of child’s needs, 133, 141, 145, 162 - emotional effort 33 - experiences 52 - goals 26 - in socio-historical context 14 - instructional speech 31 - intentions 30 - needs 26 - values 18, 43, 61, 180-84, 189, 199, 232 - views 28 Parke 13 participant families of the in-depth study 49 Pharr 24 Phinny 21 Phinny and Alipuria 35 Phoenix 20, 24, 25, 45, 62

Phoenix and Woollett 28 Pleck 13 Plummer 42, 43 Polkinghorne 44 power - in society 11 - in marital relationships 10, 11 - law and 11 pressures on mothers 8, 27, 28, 229 priorities 34, 102, 130, 195, 227 ‘pro-activist’ mothering 3, 137, 142-45, 148, 151, 153, 156, 157, 158, 185, 189, 200, 211, 212, 223, 227, 232 process (importance of understanding) - in ethnicity 20 - as invisible influence on bilingual-child rearing 34, 41 - gendered 14 - of decision making 87 - of parenthood 13 - of role construction 14 productive bilingual 29, 32, 34 proving work (of mothers) 96, 101, 120, 150, 166, 226, 229 psycholinguistics studies, developmental 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36 qualitative approach 3, 42, 220 - method 40, 41, 42, 60, 226 - study 40, 42 quantitative approach 226 questionnaires 47, 68-71 - open questions 47 Rampton 233 reaffirmation, as vital in bilingual-child rearing 230 reading and writing, see literacy and Japanese reading and writing recognition 3, 216, 219 - and empowerment 230 - and identity 229, 230 - demand/need for 198 - of sacrifice 200 Reinharz 45, 46





Invisible work

relationship of mothers - with children 32, 124 - with Japan 90-91 reliability of data 39, 56, 58 religion 14 reminding work 124-25, 134 replicability 33 research relationships 51-53, 54, 56, 58 resistance of children (to parental authority) 196 responsibility 12, 15, 27 - as parents 141 - childrearing 154 - feel, for English development 146, 158, 162 - feel, for the difficulties cause by bilingual-childrearing 166 - of bilingual-child rearing 12, 16, 115, 137, 139, 143, 158, 172, 219 - shared 219, 230 Richards and Richards 59 Richman et al. 36 Roberts and Zuengler 193, 218 Rohrrich 14, 35 Romaine 26, 28, 31, 26, 74 Ronjat 29 sacrifice 182-82 Saunders 32, 107 Schecter and Bayley 28 Schecter et al. 28, 230, 233 Schnepp and Yui 15 school 81, 118, 161, 162 - assessment at 166-67, 190 - English competence at 120 - experience of 165 - mothers’ interaction with teachers - league tables 123, 167 - parental involvement 167 - performance of the child 29, 123, 16364, 165, 166 - preparing for 151, 166 - social adjustment at 164-65 - starting early (at four years old) 121, 167-69, 170, 189

- worry about starting 118, 119, 167 - sensitivity 14, 27, 32 Shand 22 shared commitment (as vital in bilingualchildrearing) 230 Shwalb and Shwalb 23 Shwalb et al. 23 Singh et al. 233 simutaneous accommodation, see accommodation simultaneous acquisition (of more than two languages) 29 simultaneous process of research, see analysis situational context, see context situational ethnicity, see ethnicity social change 42, 104, 176 social class 15, 23 social context 9, 19, 60, 111, 118, 120, 227, see also context - level of 59, 61 social explanation 61 social interaction (of children) 162 socialisation 22 social network 91, 95, 96, 100-1, 105, 106, 131, 133, 134, 138, 144, 213 - British 150, 153, 155, 156 - creating (for language) 112, 113, 222 - Japanese 112, 150-53, 155, 156, 157, 158 socio-geographical location of the family (and childrearing) 103, 149, 159 sociolinguistics 28, 233 - gendered study 33 socio-historical - change 102-3 - context 102, 104, 106, 111, 114, 121, 123, 169, 175-77, 216, 227 - context of childrearing 26, 141-42, 14445, 157-58, 169, 200 - upbringing of the parents 13 sociological studies 25 Spanish (language) 28 Standard Assessment Tests and Tasks (SATS) 166, 190 Steinberg 18

Index

stereotypes 21, 25, 88 Stevens and Swicegood 14 Stone 165 strategies 9, 25, 28, 180, 184 - parental 25, 161 - urban-industrial 25 Strauss 15 Strauss and Corbin 59, 60, 61, 107 subjective views 2, 23, 24, 25, 43 Sudman and Bradburn 69 Sung 14 support 90, 137, 219, 230 - balance of 152, 159 - proximate 25 survey 39, 40, 41, 46-47, 65-86, 220 - aim of 65 - distribution of 69-71 - guiding hypotheses of the 68 - large scale surveys 42 - relations with ‘Japan’ in the 79 - representative 67 - respondents of 71-74 - sampling 40, 41 stress 200, 212, 213 structures, opportunity 18 structural situation 227 - of mothers 27, 211 - and position of women in the interview situation 55 Takagi 18, 21 Taylor, C. 229, 230 Taylor, R. L. 18 teaching techniques 31 teen years (of children) 194-96, 199, 200-3, see also adolescence Tesch 60 theories (theory) - conditional 31, 40, 59 - culturally sensitive 41 - generation of 60, 230 - formal 39 - personal 44 - substantive 40, 59 - universal 31, 59

Thompson and Walker 11, 12, 13 Thorogood 12 time competition 170-76, 179, 180-88, 189, 223-24 - ‘not enough time’ 170, 176 - from after-school activities 172-74, 223 Tinker 14 Tizard and Hughes 37 Tizard and Phoenix 14, 62 transmission, cultural 15, 16 triangulation 40 trilingualism 29 Tripp-Reimer and Wilson 14 ‘unnatural’, mothers perception 111, 113, 131 Vaillant and Vaillant 196 validity of the data 39, 42, 56, 57, 61-62 variables 39, 49 variations 9, 25, 42, 45 - in parental behaviour 36 Varro 15, 16, 17, 27 Verma and Ashworth 28 Voysey 22, 54, 61, 62 Walkerdine and Lucey 30 Wallman 20 West 36 West and Zimmerman 13 Wetzel 55 White and Woollett 32 Williams, C. 45 Williams, N. 17 Wilson 20, 62 wives 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, see also mothers Wolf et al. 35 Woodrum 14 Woollett 20, 24, 35, 46, 62 Woollett et al. 62, 203 Woollett and Phoenix 32 work 16, 19, 217, see also employment - domestic 11, 13, 31, 33 - fathers 115, 138-41, 142, 189, 209, 223 - orientations 16





Invisible work

- mothers wanting to 127 - previous work experience of mothers’, influence of 127 Yamamoto 33 Yeandle 11, 35 Yoshino 21 Young and Willmott 10

In the series IMPACT: STUDIES IN LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 1. PÜTZ, Martin (ed.): Language Choices. Conditions, constraints, and consequences. 1997. 2. KIBBEE, Douglas A. (ed.): Language Legislation and Linguistic Rights. Selected Proceedings of the Language Legislation and Linguistic Rights Conference, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March, 1996. 1998. 3. LINELL, Per: Approaching Dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. 1998. 4. OWENS, Jonathan: Neighborhood and Ancestry. Variation in the spoken Arabic of Maiduguri, Nigeria. 1998. 5. ANDREWS, David R.: Sociocultural Perspectives on Language Change in Diaspora. Soviet immigrants in the United States. 1999. 6. RICENTO, Thomas (ed.): Ideology, Politics and Language Policies. Focus on English. 2000. 7. McCAFFERTY, Kevin: Ethnicity and Language Change. English in (London)Derry, Northern Ireland. 2001. 8. ARMSTRONG, Nigel: Social and Stylistic Variation in Spoken French. A comparative approach. 2001. 9. HELLINGER, Marlis and Hadumod BUßMANN (eds.): Gender Across Languages. The linguistic representation of women and men: Volume I. 2001. 10. HELLINGER, Marlis and Hadumod BUßMANN (eds.): Gender Across Languages. The linguistic representation of men and women. Volume 2. n.y.p. 11. In preparation. 12. OKITA, Toshie: Invisible Work. Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families. 2002. 13. OAKES, Leigh: Language and National Identity. Comparing France and Sweden. 2001. 14. WEBB, Vic: Language in South Africa. The role of language in national transformation, reconstruction and development. n.y.p. 15. BOXER, Diana: Applying Sociolinguistics. Domains and face-to-face interaction. n.y.p.